RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2685, 25 September 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. Cutten y. Macdonald.—Lß2, an immigration bill for passage-money owing by defendant, with interest. It was the rehearing of a former case, adjourned to consider the question of interest being added from the date of the bill. Decision stands as before. Calcutt v. Wood.—Lß 13s 4d. This was a summons for one month’s rent due for occupation of Ellis’s hotel and stables. Mr Calcutt ju evidenpe stated that he let his promises to defendant upon the same terms as a former tenant, Mr Hinchcliffe, held it, Wood bad already paid him two months rent, but on applying for the last month, he said he would not pay unless he deducted the rates, which he of course refused to do, as in the original lease the tenant was bound to pay it. Mr Wood, iu defence, said when Mr Calcutt let him the hotel, he understood the rent was to be 1.2 per week, and he never agreed to pay the rates. He owned having purchased the stock, license, and furniture, but never knew he was to be bouud by the provision* of the lease held by the former tenant. His Worship said the defendant upon taking the premises from Mr Calcutt evidently understood that they were to be taken upon the same terms as by the former tenant, and he must therefore decide for the plaintiff, with costs. Stentiford v. Irving.—L9 ss, rent due. Mr Harris for the plaintiff; Mr Taylor, of Tokomairiro, for the defendant. Plaintiff said defendant was a tenant of his in 1863, occupying his house twepty-two weeks. After that time defendant went up the country, leaving a few things iu the house, because he could not travel with them. When he came down to town he asked him a good many times for payment, and lately he had paid him L2. The defendant in evidence stated that he did not owe the money, and that he had told plaintiff when he on

one occasion met him in Rattray street that as he had kept possession of the goods be had left, he considered he was “square” .with him. The L2 paid he had recently given to Mr Stentiford was not on account of rent at all. Mr Taylor, for defendant, said the debt came withing the statue of limitations,- and although he understood a verbal promise was given in 1864 to pay, unless that was in writing the case failed. Mr Harris, for plaintiff, said he did not understand that the Act made a debt absolutely Void if it stood over for six years, but only if a person chose to take advantage of the statute. As to whether a payment made after six year's had elapsed could be considered part payment, he was not prepared to say. As it was a point of some importance he should like his Worship to state his opinion upon the subject somewhat fully. His Worship agreed that it was an important point, and said he would take time to consider his decision. Stead v. Caroline Taiaroi.—Lß 3s, for goods supplied to defendant, a Maori woman living near the Heads, Port Chalmers. The plaintiff, who is a boatman, supplies the Natives with shawls, cotton goods, silks, black beaver hats trimmed with red feathers, &c., and in exchange on certain occasions receives potatoes, pigs, and produce. His Worship remarked, that he would set his face against giving these people such credit as plaintiff evidently did, and ho recommended plaintiff in all future transactions to deal in cash. Mr I. N. Watt acted as interpreter. (Left sitting )