RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2693, 4 October 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. G. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Casks, Livingston (Receiver of Land Revenue) v. M'Swan. —L 3 2s 6d, for fees due on Crown grants. His Worship made an order for the payment, with costs. Wilson and Birch v. Carey.—Llo 5s 6d, for ale eupplied. Judgment by default for amount claimed, together with costs. Wilson and Birgh v. Qjlligau.—Ll6 10s, for ale supplied. Mr Harris for plaintiff; Mr Stout for defendant. Mr J. Wilson (of the firm of Wilson and Birch) said he supplied to Mr Gilligan, through his traveller, three hogsheads of ale. He had since seen Mr Gilligan, who never denied to him that he did not give the order, but said he had sent the ale to a store. He stated he had not taken it in. Their firm had dealt with Gilligan for six years, and on this occasion defendant made no excuse for not taking the alp in after having ordered it through their traveller. ‘ Jp examination by, M r Stout, lyitngss said hp ’hpd si pee seep the storekeeper to whom the ale was sent, who asked him whether he was going to pay rent for warehousing his beer, and he replied he had nothing.to do with it; the best thing he could do was to sell it aud pay his rent. Mr Gilligan had never said he would not deal with him, and he had often asked for the payment but had been refused.—Mr Stout contended that as the goods had not been taken in, nor any order produced, the plaintiffs must be nonsuited.—His Worship said there being no delivery proved and no written order, he must give a verdict for the defendant. Costs were also allowed. Young v. Hudson— L 3, amount of insurance premium under agreement ip a lease. Mr Cook for plaintiff, and Mr Stout for defendant. A plea of non-indebtedness Avrfi put in, Mr Young said he had leased his premises to Mr Hudson, aud they bad been insured in Ins own and Mr Hudson’s name for LIOO. The premium for such insurance was L 3, and he claimed the same under the covenant, not having surrendered the lease. Mr Stout contended that the plaintiff excavating as he did underneath defendant’s premises, so as to endanger their stability, had trespassed in such a manner as made it equivalent to a surrender of the lease. —Mr Hudson said he bad leased the premises from Mr Young for Lift) per annum. I>e did pot give permission to Mr Young- to excavate under i his premises ; but distinctly told him that it ■ would interfere with his business if he did so. He did so, however, and it seriously interfered with the working of his ipaghUmry, arid the floor was not near'so strong as’bcfore. In fact he bad to move elsewhere! Mr Peters, tffe engineer, an<l a carpenter who was employed, gave eyiclepoe that the ejoavatiqu bad damaged the machinery,—His Worship said before a lease in such a case could be surrendered by a landlord, the act which he com* mitted must not bo simply a mere tresspass,

but an act of a grave and permanent character. In this instance ho thought there was sufficient evidence to prove that th.; act of plaintiff caused defendant to leave his premises. The engineer also told the tenant that the machinery would not work there, and therefore the act was of a permanent character. He was dispossessed by the landlord and therefore no rent {could bo recoverable under thelca-te. Judgment for defendant with costs.