RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2553, 24 April 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R, Nf.) Stentiford v. Turner, —A claim for L2 4s for rent. The defendant pleaded the statute of limitations, and that the plaintiff had foregone the claim as it was incurred on behalf of another person. The plaintiff, iu his evidence, said there was a previous judgment by the Court in his favor. The defendant was ordered to pay the money. THE TELEGRAM CASE. Mr Macassey applied to the Court to issue a summors to Charles of Wellington, to appear and answer an information laid against him. His Worship said he was unable to regard the matter iu any other light than that in which it appeared at the last application. He was perfectly prepared to obey any order from the Supreme Court, but he apprehended the information on which that summons was asked, was dismissed. The summons said:—“ Whereas an information was laid on the Ist March last.” That had been already dismissed. When it was revived again, and he received an order from the Supreme Court, he was prepared to obey it. Mr Macassey : Then your "Worship declines to issue a summons on the information already sworn ? The Magistrate : At present I do. Mr Macassey withdrew. Civil Cases. Herbert, Haynes, and Co. v. Barbour.— L 5 2s Bd. Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount with costs. The Trustees of Scott and Josliug, t. Higgins. —L4 ss. 2d. balance of account, Mr. Haggitt for the plaintiffs. The defendant pleaded not indebted and a set off. The defendant said the arrangement was that an amount due to him for clothes supplied to Air. Josling was agreed to be deducted from the account. The partners Scott aud Josling were examined by the defendant with a view to show that it was agreed by the partners that the amount claimed should be deducted. This was admitted by Josling but Scott said those accounts were arranged between the partners, and the firm was not responsible for Josling’s private debts. Judgment for the plaintiffs for the amount with costa.

Ellison v. Cunningham.—A claim for L2O balance of account for goods supplied and for work and labour done. Mr. Stewart for the plaintiff, Mr. Barton for the defendant. This was an action to recover the value of a quantity of mannka and whitewood sold by the plaintiff to the dc-

fendant, which was stacked by the latter but not removed, and which was subsequently destroyed by fire, Mr Stewart contended that the property was vested in the defendant on the wood being stacked or before ; and called the defendant Cunningham, whosaid the agreement was that he was to take mixed wood at 10s a cord, and Manuka at 20s a cord. The wood to be cut in about three weeks, and he was to take the whole. He took about five cords of Manuka and eight cords and a half of mixed wood away. He had any quantity cut and stacked at the time of making the agreement. He paid a sum of money in excess of the quantity removed, but not the value of the wood cut. The bush belonged to another person, and not the plaintiff. In Oc ober the plaintiff said, the wood'having been cut, he wished for payment. There were errors ou the account and a dispute as to price. In conversation the plaintiff said to the defendant that he must consider there was no more wood belonging to him than about a cord which had been dropped outside the bush to lighten loads taken away. A few days afterwards defendant told him he had sold t''e wood and would repay the money overpaid (LlO l()s) in a few days. The wood was burnt in a few days after the conversatieus. The plaintiff said, when the fire took place there were 16 cords of Manuka and 28 cords of mixed wood cut and stacked. Evidence was given as to the value of the wood. Barton contended the delivery was not completed until the wood was cat, stacked, and measured. The last-named process was necessary to complete delivery. On the application of Mr Stewart, the plaintiff was nonsuited.

(Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R, M., and the Hon. Cajptain Fraser, J. P.) USING ABUSIVE LANOAGB.

The evidence for the defence in the infermation against John Barnes, for using abusive language to a warder of the Gaol while in the execution of his duty, was proceeded with. Mr Harris addressed the Bench at some length, and endeavored to excuse the language used by Mr Barnes. The defendant was fined L 3 and costs or 10 days imprisonment. Barnes v. Carey was dismissed.