RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2629, 21 July 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. O. Strode, E&q., R. M. Civil Cases. Bradshaw (Provincial Treasurer) v. Ross and another) —L 27. This was a claim tor passage money from Great Britain, and 1.12 14s for interest. Judgment by default for the amount with costs. Brown v. Finch—L64 15s for goods supplied. Judgment by default for the plaintiff with cost*. Bradshaw (Provincial Treasurer) v Clarkson—L3s 7s 6d, for balance of passage money and Lls 11s 6d for interest. Judgment for the amount claimed with costs. Hogg and Hutton v Cairns —L 22. Mr. Stewart for the plaintiff, Mr. Bathgate for the defendant. The defendant admitted the receipt of goods, but pleaded payment, excepting a balance of L 4 IDs 6d paid into court. The defence set up was that a number of payments made by the defendant, instead of being plac'd to the credit of the defendant on a current account, were sought to be set off against a former debt contracted prior to his receiving a discharge in bankruptcy. The defendant said it was his intention to discharge the debt if time were granted but that nothing passed between plaintiff and defendant authorising the appropriation of the payments io the discharge of the first debt. Mr Stewart maintained that the accounts rendered having always included the old debt, and receipts having been given on those accounts, were virtually' proof of an agreement that the payments should be in liquidation of the former debt. The plaintiff Hutton was called, who refeired to a c mvorsation with the defendant, in which he promised to pay the amount. The firm always appropi iated. payments of m >ncy to the old accounts. His Worship considered that the appropriation of the payments having been made without distinct consent of the defendant, the claim could not be sustained, no notice having been given. Judgment for the, plaintiff for the amount paid into Court, with costs.

Lang v. Towers.—L2s, for half year’s rent of section 1, block 26, Dunedin. Mr Harris for the plaintiff ; Mr Stout for the defendant, who pleaded not indebted. From the evidence, it appeared in the year 1861, Mr F, G. Lang let,by deed of lease the property in question to Mr J. R. Hood, for fourteen years, at LSO a year, payable half-yearly. The lease was afterwards proposed to to assigned to Towers, and a deed was drawn up by Mr Findlater, thrn clerk to Mr John M'Glashan, but he could not say that it was ever executed. The plaintiff said Hood paid the rent until his death, And afterwards it was paid by Towers to him (plaintiff), and he gave receipts for it until the death of Towers. Afterwards it was once paid by Mrs Towers, and subsequently by Charles Keid, as agent for her. He had made six or seven payments, the last of which was November 13, 1870. L 25 was dueon the 13th May last, and on applying to Mr Keid for the amount, he replied he was instructed not to pay it. Charles Reid; agent to the executors of the late Mr Towers : Mrs Towers had an interest in the section in question through Mr Towers having been in possession and receiving the rent. He received instructions from Mrs Towers, as executrix, to receive, and pay the rents ; and on one Occasion, by authority of the executors, he prepared a form of distraint which was executed upon one of the sub-tenants. He received rent in consequence. He believed rent had been received since November from the sub-tenants, and no notice had been given to Mr Lang to abandon the pro- 1 perty. Judgment reserved. ‘ 1 Bamford v. Russell.—L34 4s. The plaintiff sued the defendant in his capacity as Treasurer to the Mornington School Committee for the amount of fees received by him as teacher of the school, The plaintiff pleaded not indebted and a set-off. Mr. Stout for the defendant contended that he had been engaged by a former school cimmittee at a salary granted by the Provincial Government and fees, and that the terms having been agreed upon, could not be altered without three mouths’ notice ; and moved for anon-suit on the. ground that the plaintiff had not power to sue. Mr Haggitt replied as to the non-suit. Adjourned to this day week.