RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2613, 3 July 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. G. Strode, Esq., B. 11.) Civil Cases. Dalhj limes and I Vifness Company v. Avnofc, -Ll4 11s Si), a claim for telegraphic corrcsj oiulcucG supplied by the late editor, Mr Barton. Mr D. Campbell, manager to the company, put in a copy of the agreement, which was merely an agreement between the defendant and Mr Barton. His Worship said that, until the claim was transferred to the company, although Mr Barton had acted on their behalf, the action could not be sustained, (The case was adj juinel for a month.. Harris v. George Thompson.—L2 6s 6d, a claim for balance of account for goods supplied. A further amount of LI 2s 6d was received on Saturday night. Judgment for plaintiff, LI, with coats. Krule v. Dickie.—LG 15s, for rent an 1 rates paid; LI Os 2d, of which a certain portion was {paid. The defendant pleaded a set-off amounting to L 7 Ids. The set-off was for a quantity of wire-work done for the plaintiff. Amongst the items was a wire work table, which the plaintiff had taken for the purpose of railing. As no adjustment had taken place respecting this item was s.ruck out. Judgment for the plaintiff, L2 11s Bd, with costs. Oliver and Ulph v. A. Johnson.—L4 17s lid. Judgment by default for the plain riff, with costs. Walker v, John Black.—Ll4 6s 6d, for goods supplied. Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount, with costs. Fulton v. Croshaw. —Mr Harris for the defendant. Mr Turtou, for the plaintiff, stated that the proceedings were instituted for the purpose of obtaining possession of premises occupied by the defendant in George street, at the hack of the Loyal George Stables. He had held the premises under an agreement, which expired on the Ist J are, 1870. •'■iuce then he had been a toe nit at will, but agreed to deliver up possession on

the 15th June. This he refused to do, aud in Consequence it was found necessary to institute the present course. The defendant asserted that he had made a special agreement with the plaintiff for the portion of the property occupied by him, and that he had promised to give up possession as stated, on condition of receiving something as goodwill. Mr Turton asked lor an adjournment in order to have the attendance of a material witness, Mr Harris objected. His Worship said that he had considerable doubt as to the position of the case, and was proceeding to comment on the evidence, when Mr i'urton asked for a non-suit. Tne plaintiff was non-suited. Joel v. Macpherson.—LO 12s, the amount of a dishonored cheque. Judgment by default for plaintiff.