RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2711, 25 October 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before J. Fulton, Esq., R.M.) Citil Cases. Livingston (receiver of Crown revenue).— L 6 ss, for fees due on Crown grants. An order was made for payment of the amount, with costs. M'Laren v. Rodgers.—ln this case the defendant was required to show why he ne glected to pay the amount of a debt sued for and ordered to be paid by the Court. His Worship commented upon several items of luxury in the bill of particulars, such as geneva and jams, and pointed out that until debts were discharged the cost of living should be limited to articles of necessity only. The complainant agreed to take 5s a week. In default of payment respondent to be imprisoned 14 days, Sampson v. Martin.—L9 ss, for goods supplied, Judgment for plaintiff by default for the amount, with costs. Dow v. Tait.—L4 11s 2d. Mr Catamore for the plaintiff. The claim was for three months’ rent of property at Sunnyside. Mr Stout for the defendant. D. Miller, junr., agent for the plaintiff, proved having received rent up to the 31st August last. Mr Stout contended that Mr Miller had no authority to sue, as his authority only extended to collection of rents, and he had no power of attorney authorising him to take proceedings. Mr Catamore contended that, as a"ent for Mr Dow, Mr Miller sued in his name. The plaintiff was nonsuited. Leary v. G. Proudfoot. • Ll4 Bs, Mr M'Keay for the plaintiff; Mr Catamore for the defendant. On his behalf, Mr Catamore agkeq dates to certain items of account, omitted' should be furnished. The general plea was “not indebted/’ Tfre plaintiff is Provisional Trustee in Bankruptcy and trustee in the estate of W. Sly ; and the debt was alleged to have been contracted with Sly as agent of a vessel of which Proudfoot was owner. For the plaintiff, Mr MTteay contended that on two grounds the defendant was liable—first, as being liable as owner for debts incurred on behalf of ti\e yessel by the captain ; and, secondly, as being the contracting party with Sly. The dates having ’been furnished, the evidence of Mr Siy was taken, who ’said that he was appointed by the defendant as agent of the Aparima, under the command of Captain Spence. For the defence, it was stated that at the time when the alleged debts were incurred Captain Spence was owner of the Aparima, and the person who alone was liable, A copy of agreement was read between the defendant and Captain Spence, by which the latter agreed to work the vessel and pay all expenses on condition of receiving two-* birds of the earnings of the vessel. Mr M‘Keay replied. The defendant denied having placed the Aparima in Sly’s hands as agent, and said the only transactions bp had had with him was to ascertain' the whereabouts of the vessel, the lease having expired. The acpou#t bad not been furnished nor applied for until after Sly’s bankruptcy, An agreement was put in between Captain Spence and the defendant, by which the vessel was leased to the former for six months, from January to June, 1870. At the request of MrMTCeay, the Clerk of the Court was instructed to take Mr Proudfoot’s denial of Sly’s appointment down. He said that to the best of his recollection the words stated by Sly had never been used by him. Mr M‘Keay applied that the case should be postponed for a‘ mouth, to give ouportunity to have the evidence of Captain Spence, on condition that tlipjftdimy should be'deposited in Court. On consultation with ilia attorney, the defendant agreed to abide the decision of the Court. Judgment for the plaintiff for the amount, with costs Yo mg v. Chapman. —His Worship gave judgment in this case, in which the plaintiff sought to recover certain goods alleged to be illegally detained. He considered that the lien which the'defendant h a d ever th o goods for payment of money due was still in force. Case dismissed.

M f Vioker v. Josh. Asher—L2p 6s lOd. Mr Edward Cook, for the plaintiff. Mr Btout, for the defendant, objected thst the summons was not properly served. According to the evidence of the plaintiff, jt appeared tr.at the summons was thrust under a door of a room where the defendant was said to have secreted himself, and where plaintiff said he saw defendant fasten the door. The brother of the defendant said he could not be

seen from the window, as alleged by the plaintiff. His Worship decided that the proof of service of summons and subpoena was sufficient. He considered, at the same time, that the particulars of the demand were not sufficiently set out. Mr Stout pleaded illegality of the demand. From the evidence of the plaintiff it appeared that plaintiff was a store-keeper, and supplied the defendant with goods and lent him money, on account of which a small amount had been paid, and the remainder was admitted to be due by the defendant. On cross-exam nation by Mr Stout it appeared that the goods supplied were ale, porter, and tobacco, but, on being asked whether any beer was supplied not in bottle, the plaintiff refu-ed to answer, lest he might criminate himself. The account was made out in Fenwick’s hotel in the presence of the defendant. They were not drinking, as he (witness) was a tee-totallcr. Defendant had agreed to give him an acceptance, but, for reasons not stated, he refused to sign it. W. Asher said he had paid L 5 18* on behalf of the defendant, who admitted owing a few shillings more than that. The defendant, in his evidence, said he did not owe the amount claimed on the date stated, and believed he never owed plaintiff half the amount. As far as he recollected, he never borrowed more than 30s in money. He believed there were two or three pounds owing, and had offered, through his brother, five pounds in settlement of his claim rather than take it into Court. It was admitted that the plaintiff had a bottle license. Mr Stout said that the case could not be sustained, as the beer was supplied contrary to the “ Tippling A ct, ” and that even the price of spirits mixed with water could not be recovered. His Worship was clear that either the plaintiff must be non-suited, on the ground of incomplete particulars, or that he could not recover on account of illegality. Something had been said about the refusal t to pay being discreditable, but he bad no sympathy with a man professing to bo a tee-totaller and doing all he could to induce persons to drink. Judgment for the defendant.