RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2753, 13 December 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tins Day.

(Before A. C. Strode, Esq., 8.M.) Civil Cases. Neil v. Peterson.—Mr Edward Cook applied for leave to appeal in this case. Mr Haggitt oppos d the application on the ground that the time within which notice of appeal could be given had laps? d, and also that the defendant had “bolted.” His Worship said that it had come to his knowledge, through the b mdsmen calling upon him and stating it, that the defendant had “bolted,” and they wanted to know what to do in the matter. Mr Cook said after that statement he would proceed no further with the case. Mr Anderson, of the firm of Smith and Anderson, applied on behalf of the City Corporation for a warrant to issue, authorising the bailiff to view certain premises leased to one Gavin Park, situated in Sawyer’s Bay. The application was granted. Paterson and M'Leod v. Shackleton.— LIOs 9d lid for goods sold and delivered. Judgment by default for the plaintiffs for the amount with costs. Sly v. Eeichelt.—L9. Mr Stout for the defendant. The plaiotifF claimed payment for twelve days’ attendance at the Supreme Court as a witness, at lus a day. Mr Stout asked for a nonsuit on various legal grounds, mainly that no evidence was offered that the sum claimed was according to the scale allowed by the Supreme Court. His Worship said, referring to Nokes v. Gibbon (2G Law Journal, ch. 208, quoted by Addison on Contracts), it was held that “ if a man undertook a journey to become bail for a friend, or attends as a witness in a court of justice, he is not entitled to be paid for his trouble. In the last case, of attendance to give evidence, it is a duty of a public nature, and an express propiise tq remunerate a witness for his doing so is invalid. But the witness js entitled to compensation according to the scale determined on by the judges, under the common law procedure. ” The plaintiff was nonsuited. Dermer v. Boisson.—The defendant was called upon to explain what means he had of discharging a debt for which judgment had been given in the Court. The respondent appeared to have no regular employment, and to have a very pr carious income. His Worship said, from tjie admission of the defendant, it was evident he. had cqutracted the debt without prospect of paying it, and that ho had shown a determination not to pay it. The amount was increased from 1.2 17s to L 3 f 7s, through addition of costs. He must discharge the whole within one month, or be imprisoned In gaol for a like period.

Casting.—A financial reformer is so devoted to figures that when he has nothing to do he casts up bis eyes.