RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2476, 23 January 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

This Day.

(Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.)

Civil Cases,

Oliver .and Ulph v. Wiggins and Maephcrson -L2 Us, balance of account. Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount with costs. Blackadder v. Scgur. —LI I 15s !kl for goods supplied. Judgment by default for the plaintiff, for the amount with costs. Sly v, Oleringshaw.—L2 5s 6d, balance of account for goods supplied. Judgment by default for plaintiff for the amount with costs.

Neale v. Austead. —Lls 7s. Mr Harris for the plaintiff. This was an action brought to recover the price of a number of wheelbarrow wheels supplied to the defendant, who on being applied to for payment returned eighteen without the iron axles. There was no defence. Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount with costs.

Sutherland v. Tadmau.— L 7 Gs lOd for groceries supplied. Judgment by default for the plaintiff with costs. Jennings v. Tadman.—L9 13s 4d. Judgment by default for the amount with costs.

M‘Randall v. M‘Bride.—A claim for L 5 for cash lent. Mr Harris for the plaintiff and Mr M‘Keay for the defendant. The dejj fence was never indebted and a partnership. From the evidence of the plaintiff, it appeared that the plaintiff, defendant, and a person named Hare were partners as brickmakers at Anderson’s Bay. The dissolution w'as gazetted on the 2uth June. The plaintiff lent defendant L 5 to pay his board in January, 18/0, and the loan had nothing to do with the partnership arrangements. The defendant promised twice to pay the amount since the dissolution of partnership, 1 Hare gave evidence to the effect that the partnership accounts were settled on the 23th January, and that the defendant gave his “hand and word ” to pay the live pounds to the plaintiff. Mr M'Keay objected to the witness referring to copies of the books and the case, on the application of Mr Harris, was adjourned to Wednesday for the pro; duction of the original documents. Modeste v. Murphy.—A claim forL2 10s., the amount of one week’s wages as cook. From the statement of the defendant he engaged with Mrs Murphy to go as cook at the .’Shamrock, but on going to enter on his duties, Mr Murphy said he did not nee I his services as lie avas going to sell the house. The case was referred to private arrangement.

Fitzgerald v. Pritchard and others.—For work and labor done, viz., 35 days 3 hours, at 8s 6d per day, Ll3 Iss 6d. Mr Harris for defendants. The defendants admitted being indebted to the plaintiff to the amount of L 7 17s 9d, which amount they paid into Court. From the evidence it appeare I that during the time sued for the plaintiff hr.d been working for Mr M Kenzic (manager for defendants), for 14 days, at his private house, therefore defendant refused to pay for that time. Mr M‘Evenzie stated that he was engaged as manager for defendants on Taieri contract, and in consequence of wet weather, he sent the plain l iff down to his house to do some work. He did not think the defendent’s should be called upon to pay for work done at his house. His Worship gave judgment for the amount paid into Court, L 7 17 s 9d, with costs against plain-, tiff.