RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2679, 18 September 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. 0. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil. Cases. Rose v. W. Pcrcival.—Ll 15s for balance of account for goods supplied. Judgment by default for the’ plaintiff for the amountwith costs. Douglass v. Fairbank. —LG Ss. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, as assignee of the book debts of Scott and Jocelyn, for meat supplied by that firm to the defendant. The deed of assignment of the book debts to Messrs Wright and Maclean and to the plaintiff was proved by Mr Brewer, an officer of the Supreme Court, and by an attesting witness. Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount claimed with costs. Same v, W. Hooper. LI 10s lid, for balance of account in the same estate. Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount with costs. Blazer v. Chapman.—Lß 10s. A claim for unlawful detention of a silver lever watch. The defendant pleaded a set off, and that he had not had time to serve the plaintiff with a summons. By agreement with the plaintiff both cases were heard together.

The defendant admitted having possession of the watch, but said he had .a claim for two pounds, which he had paid to release the watch from the Robert Burns. His Worship said that the defendant not being a licensed pawnbroker, had no right whatever to advance money on a watch, and that he was doubly biamable for doing so when he was keeping a pub ichouse. The reason was plain, that it encouraged drinking. The law was express on the subject. Judgment for the plaintiff, 1.8 10s to be reduced to one shilling on delivery of the watch. Chapman v. Blazer.—L4 17s, for board and lodging, and for money advanced. The defendant admitted owing L2 17s, but pleaded that L2 advanced on the watch was paid by his mate. This was admitted, but the plaintiff said it was on account of money owing for board and lodging, ami not for the watch. The defendant said that his mate pawned his watch without his knowledge or consent. He saw his mate pay Mr Chapman, and then asked for his watch, when he was told “ A bird in the hand is worth two iti the bush,* and Mr Chapman refused to give up the watch His Worship said there was no doubt the money had been advanced, and there was not sufficient evidence of its being repaid. Judgment for the plaintiff, L 4 17s and costs.

Livingston (Receiver of Laud Revenue) v. M‘iS T eil. —L37 14s, for twelve Crown grants. The claim was—for the grants, Ll2 (LI each); registration fees, L 8 18s ; and 6d per grant per month, fines, Ll6 16s. An order was granted for the plaintiff for the amount claimed,'with costs. Lyons v. Huntley.—L2 9s 6d. This was a summons calling upon the defendant to state the circumstances under which the debt Was contracted, judgment having been obtained against him, and as to his prospective means of paying it. The debt was admitted, and the defendant proposed to pay it by instalments of 10s a week. The defendant said be w s a mechanist cons ected with the Princess Theatre. lie was receiving LI 15s weekly and board and lodging, and had a wife with two children. He had to send LI IDs weekly to his wife, who was in Christchurch. Miss Matthews was at the In ad of the company. The plaintiff said Miss Matthews would pay the debt if the defendant would give her an order to do so. 11 is Worship considered the debt ought be* fore this lime to have been discharged, and recommended the course suggested being followe 1. The defendant was oidevel to pay L2 Ids 3d, the amount with expenses and c sfs, or to remain | n custody for fourteen days.

Douglas v. Hooper.—Mr Hooper appl ed for a rehearing in the, case of Douglass v. Hooper. Mr Douglass objected, but con* sented to Hooper stating his grounds of application, which were alledged breach of agreement by Douglass, and payment of certain instalments. His Worship considered that the defendant not having been present had not the slightest claim to a rehearing, but he did not wish to shut him out from any valid defence. Ultimately Mr Douglass withdrew his objection, and Hooper was allowed to go into his defence. The defence was that LI 5s lOd, paid into Court was the true amount due. A. Josling was called, who said he had received 10s from Hooper for Air Douglass in two payments of 5s each, that another wa? paid which Mr Douglass refused to receive, saying that he would not receive the small amount, but would have the full amount. His Worship considered that the defendant had paid money to a person not authorised to receive it. The original judg* ment was confirmed. *