RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2393, 2 December 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tins Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Casks. Goldstein and Mueller v. S. Collins— L24 ISs Gd. An action to recover the value of a dishonored hill, Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount with costs. Mt-rcerv. Deuchrass—L2o IGs, for balance of account on an I O U for 1/2(5 10, L 6 of which was paid. Judgment by default for plaintiff for the amount with costs. The Bank of New Zealand v. J. R, Crawford—L42 10s lid. Mr Holmes (for Mr

Macassey) for the plaintiffs. The claim was for overdraft and interest at 10 per cent. His Worship questioned whether the Bank could claim more than the legal rate of interest, 8 per cent. The defendant was called to state the amount of interest agreed to on his obtaining an overdraft at the Bank, but gave such vague answers to the questions put to him that his evidence was utterly valueless. Air Holmes contended that interest at 10 per cent, having been paid in an overdraft previously, a special agreement was established between the Bank and the defendant by ■which the latter agreed to that rate. In support of this view he cited Ohitty, The ledger clerk was called, who said the defendant had had an overdraft several years, ami had always paid 10 per cent, interest. His Worship considered that in the present case it would be better for the Bank to accept the lower rate of interest at 8 per cent., but he would not lay it down as a principle. Judgment Dr the plaintiff, L4l. Gs fid. *

Herbert, Haynes and Co. v. E. Petherick —L2I 2s 4d, the amount of a dishonoured draft. Mr Harris for the plaintiffs. Judgment for the plaintiffs for the amount with costs. Charles Read and T. Burton, trustees in a deed of maintenance v. A. D. Harvey- -Mr Stewart for the plaintiff, Mr Haggitt for the defendant. Mr Haggitt applied for an adjournment, as the defendant had to obtain leave of absence from the Government before appearing in answer to the summons. Mr Stewart objocted to the adjournment on the ground that if time were granted advantage might be taken of it hy the defendant to defeat the action. He contended that the summons was served in ample time, and the plaintiffs would be treated unjustly by delay. His Worship considered that plenty of time had been given and the case proceeded. E. Harvey, wife of the defendant, being called said that L 8 13s 4d a month maintenance money had been settled upon her by deed by her husband, and that L 54 13s 4d was in arrears. For this sum she now sued. Only LG had been paid. Several witnesses were called to prove the validity of the dead and the signatures of the attesting witnesses. Charles Read, one of the trustees, said ho had not received the money. For the defence Mr Haggitt contended that there was no proof of the money not having been paid, and that the parties were not entitled to sue. It was not a deed under the Conveyancing Ordinance, but merely a deed of covenant between the parties that in the first deed wfis no power of assignment of (ho choxr in action. All monies due on the 31st < ctober might be assigned, but not further, and the deed appointing new trustees differed from the other deed ; as the name of one of the trustees mentioned was spelt W. Dickson, and in the other W. Dixon, and there was no evidence to show the identity of the person Mr Stewart contended it was necessary to prove payment by the defendant, and that a letter put in evidence to a great extent acknowledged the debt The Court called evidence to prove the identity of Dixon. Judgment reserved. Percival v. D. A. M'Leod.— L 27. Mr Stewart for the defendant. A claim for services rendered. From the evidence of the plaintiff it appeared that in August last he was encaged as draughtsman and chainman by the defendant, and continued in his employ until the month of October ; but had never received more than 10s salary. He claimed the balance as due to him. A. Percival, father of the plaintiff, said that the defendant agreed to give 10s a day for every day he was employed. For the defence it was contended that the services of the plaintiff were to be given on condition of his receiving instruction in land surveying. The defendant M ‘Leod said that the agreement was that there was no understanding about remuneration excepting that the plaintiff was to receive half the fees for architectural plans and drawings, and was allowed some perquisites in getting out quantities for contractors. He was irregular in bis attendance, not being specifically engaged. His Worship considered the plaintiff entitled to something for his services. The evidence showed there was an intention of remunerating him, and as it was agreed on the second

week he should have L2, that should he considered the rate of salary. Judgment for plaintiff, LI 7 10s. H. S. Fish, jun., v. Dickinson.—Lß 13s 6d. Judgment by default for the amount, with costs.