RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2757, 18 December 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. ' (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) jG^vil Cask. Hughes v. Simnmrs.—LS 2s ijd for coal and wood supplied, Judgment by' default for the plaintilf. Sidcy v. Gardner and another.—Ll2 19s 3d for rent of 30i acres of land for six mouths, Mr James Smith for the plaintilf, Mr Stout for the defendant. Mr Stout put in a certificate of discharge under a petition of bankruptcy on the part of Gardner, who had married one of the lessees of the land, Margaret Colßns. The discharge in bankruptcy was admitted, and the oas,9 v/a,s proceeded with against the remaining lessee, J/iije Collins. In defence, Mr Stout argued that the lessess were jointly, not severally, liable under the lease ; that, under the Bankruptcy Ac-, tbe interest formerly vested in Margaret Collins reverted to the plaintiff, and consequently Jane Collins could only be liable for half the rent, the landlord himself occupying the position of a joint tenant with Jane Collins ; that Jane Collins having paid ! rent tip to last May she really had paid more than w.si£ due, and had therefore a claim for th,c ov.orqJup tmon the plaintiff. Mr Smith replied such, an interpretation was contrary to the spirit &id’intention of the law, and involved an absurdity, ! There was no evidence that the trustee in bankruptcy had made an election to take possession of the land, and therefore the regaining tenant must be in the same position as it ths bankrupt Gardner were dead. In fact he was dead ,‘n law, and therefore the remaining lessee was liaffie. Mr. Stout contended that as the tenants were not severally liable, and that the trustee not having elected to take possession, the interest of the bankrupt by law vested in Sidey. The proceedings therefore failed, for the trustee was liable, if he should have been sued ; if not liable, then Sidey was a joint tenant yith Jane Collins, and was overpaid. His Worship said the case was very peculiar, and he should jige t.o take time to consider it. It was a new point. Judgment deferred, Taylor v. Denchrass.—Ll I 1 .‘is Gd, for two months and twenty-one days wages on board ship. Mr Edward Cook for the plaintiff ; Mr Stout, for the defendant, asked for an adjournment, which was opposed by Air Cook, and refused. The plaintiff is a seaman who skipped on board the Jane Anna for six mouths. The defence was that through the carelessness of the plaintiff a jar of spirits of wine was stove in at the Grey River, and the defendant sought to deduct LIO from his bp. t proposed to let him off for L 3 IJs Gd. H,e Refused ; and the vessel sailed on Friday .evening, leaving his wages unpaid. Judginent Jor plaintiff fo* the amount with costs. Ellen Morton v. Daniel Lewis.—My Hagg t for the defendant. This war an action

brought to recover damages for misrepreientation of the character of a situation up country. Tbc case was brought in the Magistrates Court at Clyde, and evidence for the defence was gone into for transmission thither. Barbara Allen, who keeps a registry ofiice for servants, knew the defendant Daniel Lewis, whom she had known about twelve months. He had engaged live servants through her agency for places up the country, ami she knew nothing agrinst his character. So far as she had heard, the servants were always satisfied with their places. She recollected Ellen Morton being engaged about three or four weeks since. On that day Lewis engaged two servants, one for one Napier, landlord of a hotel in Butcher’s Gully. He also said that Mrs Napier had given him au order to eugage a housekeeper for a Mr Richards, hut was not sure that that was the name, when the plaintiff stood up and asked would she do ? Subsequently witness prepared a written agreement between Morton and Richards, which plaintiff signed. She heard from Ellen Morton that she did not go to that place On the same day she received her letter she procured iicr another place at Cromwell, and telegraphed her to that effect, but she replied she intended to pull Mr Lewis up, and did not want a place in the mean time Lewis was a foreigner, and she had on previous occasion known him mistake people’s names. Nothing was said about the size of Richard’s house when the engagement was made. It was not represented in her presence as a six-roome 1 cottage, and Richards was described as a well-doing man, that he was a gold digger and had a good claim. Lewis said nothing about his character, but he was represented as a single man.