RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2536, 3 April 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tuts Day,

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

Civil Cases,

Brighton v. Lccgo—-LI 15s 'fid, for goods Supplied and work done. Judgment By default for the plaintiff for the amount with costs.

Luke v. Pride —JA 17s fid. The defendant paid L2 Kjs 4d into Court, and pl-adcd n-'t iudebfcd for tlie. remainder. In his evidence the plaintiff said the defendant wished to engage him for .12 months, but he would not engage for that period with any man, and agreed to work during harvest at harvest wages. He ha-1 received higher wages this harvest than the 30s.a week he had charged. His claim was for labor durin" three weeks, one clay and a-half. For the defence, it was stated that the plaintiff agreed to engage for a year, at 1.45 a year. Judgment for the plaintiff. L 3 6s, each paying half costs. Ellison v. M‘Bride.— A claim for three weeks, five and a half days wages, at LI a week, L 3 17s fid. The defendant paid L 3 2s fid into Court, and pleaded not indebted for the remainder. The plaintiff, a youth of fifteen years old, said he was engaged with the defendant as laborer, at the rate of a pound a week. For the defence, it was slated that four and three-ejuarter’s days too. much was changed. His Worship said any dispute would have been avoided by the boy’s d agos having been‘paid w okly. Judgment for the plaintiff, 1 3'llls sd, each paying half coats

Rogers v. Driver.—Lls for expenses, .as a witness.in the ease pf Driv> rv. Dick. - The , defendant pa d 1.2 into Court. Plaintiff : charged LI for one day’s attendance.by Mr Calder, to Make'an apology for his absence, and Ll4 he claiuied for eighteen days further attendance ! from Febunry 23rd to 16 hj March, at 15s a day. He had applied to Mr Driver for his expenses, who referred him to Mr Macusey. The defendant called Mr Macassey, who explained that he had told the plaintiff he would recommend Mr Driver to give him L 7 10s, as he understood Mr Driver had refused to give him more than L2, but no promise was made to him of such an amount. The defendant said he bad paid two pounds into Court for five days’ attendance at 8s a day, but wished ,thc opinion of the Court as to the liability of private persons to pay cost of witnessesa in criminal prosecutions. His Worship said the payment of money into Court precluded the consideration of the point, as it was an admission of a debt. Mr Driver wished a fair and reasonable remuneration to be given to the plaintiff; but his impression was. the plaintiff wanted to make money out of the case. Me had told the plaintiff on the 2nd March his evidence would not he wanted, and considered that the sum paid was more than sufficient. In commenting on the evidence, his Worship observed that the plaintiff had no possible excuse for sending Mr Calder to Make an apology for his not attending under a subpoena. Mr Calder. had mv standing in the Court. The item j was therefore struck off. He had some doubts whether under a criminal prosecution the defendant could have recovered, as where evidence was given as a gratuitous act of kindness or on public grounds, a witness was not entitled to be paid. Any promise to pay a witness, in a public prosecution would be invalid under the Common Law Procedure Act, although he would be en-, titled to Bs_a day from the Crown. Bub the case was altered through a payment having been made into Court, and it became therefore his duty to consider the amount that the plaintiff was entitled to. The charge of 15s a day was preposterous. From the evidence, he considered the plaintiff entitled ;to i 8s a day for ten days. Judgment for the plaintiff, L 4. Ainsley v. Hogg—L2 18s, balance of account for painting cottages. Th;.*' plaintiff admitted L‘2 Bs. The difference, 10s, having been charged as extra liability was denied by the defendant. Judgment for plaintiff L2 18s and costs.

;-x; AR ’ Hay frey—Ls 10s 4d. The 'defendant acknowledged being indebted 18s "4d. The,. account’- .appe ired to be an old standing one, on* which several payments had been mj,.le, and it was alleged that tho defendant ha& admitted the amount. The evidence of Mr Hay and Mr Begg went to pi ove acknowledgment of the debt. Judgment for the plaintiff for the amount with costs.