RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2721, 6 November 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. O. Strode, Esq., 8.M.) Civil Cases. Wise v. H. D. Haddock.—Lß ss, Adj urued to this day week. Wilson and Birch v. Higgs.—Ls 12s, for goods sold and delivered. Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount, with costs. Same v, White.—Lls, for goods sold and delivered. Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount, with costs. Winter v. Fitzgerald—L2 11s 3d, for use and occupation of certain ground. Mr Hagfitt for the plaintiff; Mr M ‘Keay for the efendant. The plaintiff said he let the land in question in October, and defendant continued in occupation until March. Mr M‘-eay objected to producing a written agreement, as it might subject the defendant to a penalty, not being duly stamped. After some argument, Mr M ‘Keay produced it, when it was found '• o be stamped with only a shilling stamp instead of half-a-crown. The document being invalid, Mr Haggitt held that evidence was admissible of a jiarol agreement. His Worship said that although it was competent to make an agreement for a lease verbally, if reduced to writing the verbal agreement was wiped out. The only remedy was to pay the penalty of L 5, which would not be worth while to establish a claim of L2 Us 3d. The stamp duties, no doubt, worked hardly on persons not versed in the stamp laws, but it could not be helped, Mr Haggitt: They give a splendid chance to dishonesty. His Worship : No doubt ; but such is the law. The plaintiff was nonsuited.

Guthrie and Asher v. Rennie.—Ll 12s 4d, for goods supplied. Mr M'Keay for the defendant. The goods had been obtained by a carpenter named Lowe on the 14th October, professedly on behalf of the defendant, but without his written authority On application for payment, the defendant said he was not liable, as he bad a contract with Lowe, who alone was liable. The carpenter, Lowe, said he had a contract, but that he was ordered by defendant to get the wood. The defendant was bound to provide material, and witness did the work. The evidence of Rennie was taken, who said that Lowe was not authorised to give the timber, and whatever wood was necessary he ob ained from Mr Gray. His Worship said, taking into consideration that all transactions between defendant and Lowe having been closed on the 13th, it was conclusive that Rennie was not liable to the plaintiffs, but that Lowe was responsible, as the goods wore only obtained on the 14th. Judgment for the defendant.