RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2403, 14 December 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A, C. Strode, Esq., E.M.) Civil Casks. Gray v. Taylor. —For goods supplied. Mr Harris fo the plaintiff; Mr Mansford for the defence. The plaintiff, in the course of his examination, stated that he had received an order for certain goods by tbo hands of a person named Flyn, which order ho executed. The order was given by Taylor ; but the goods were charged to Flyn. On several occasions Hie defendant called to know if the account was settled, and promised to pay the amount. In cross-examination, the plaintiff said he was aware that Flyn had been insolvent; but had not been officially informed on the subject. He never rendered any bill of particulars to Taylor until after Idyii’s insolvency, nor made any application to him for payment. The defendant was examined, and denied ever having made himself responsible for the debt. For the defence it was maintained that the letter was not a guarantee, because m> notice was given to the defendant that it was intended to be treated as one; and that if it were a guarantee, it was one promising payment within a month, and application should have been made then ; but instead of that, two years were allowed to lapse before application was made. His Worship considered that the terms of the written order were sufficiently specific to constitute a guarantee. Judgment for the plaintiff, L 9 13s 2d, the amount for goods supplied under the guarantee. Mr Mansford asked leave to appeal if Ids client desired him to do so. Leave was given. Howorth and Hodgkins v. Woodbody.— LlO 12s lOd, for balance of account for professional services. Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount, with costs.

Matthews v. Dutton.—Ll 11s, for goods supplied. Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the .amount, with costs. Findlay v. Moore. —LB 19s 7d, for balance of account for coal supplied. Judgment by default for the plaint'ff for the amount, with costs.

Wm, Cowling was called upon to explain his present position in consequence of neglecting to satisfy a judgment against him in the Resident Magistrate’s Court, in November last. The claim was LI 10s, and the defendant bad been in receipt of 12s a week wages for six months. The costs had added 19s fid to the amount of the debt, and tlw defendant was ordered to pay the amount or be imprisoned in the gaol for 1.4 days. Milnes v. W. Shand.--A claim of L2O, for rent of land ; Mr Harris for the plaintiff; Mr Howorth for the defendant. For the defence Mr Howorth said they wore not willing to give up possession of the land. This case was before the Court a few weeks ago, when the plaintiff was nonsuited. It was a question of title.