RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 2808, 16 February 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tins Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Ure and Esther v. Barber..—l 33 Isßd, for goods sold and delivered. Judgment by d< fault for plaintiff for amount claimed, together with costs.

Briscoe and Co. v. Chapman.—L2l los 6d, the amount of a dishonored acceptance. The amount had been received, and the present application was for cost?. Judgment for the plaintiff for the amount of costs. Black and Thomson v. Smith.—L37 12s 9d, for goods supgiied. Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount with costs. Gray v. Taylor. —LIOO, the amount of a dishonored cheque Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount with costs. Spence v. Carey.—L3l 10s lid, Mr Stewart for the plaintiff, applied for an adjournment, in order to obtain evidence of service of summons. Case adjourned for one week.

Wilson and Birch v, Mee.—L3o 6s 9d, balance of ac omit. Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount with costs. Keenan v. Glover. — 31 10s lid, for balance of account-. Judgment by default for the plaintiff, for the amount with costs. -taveley v. Mee.—l 48 10s 3d, for spirts supplied. Judgm nb by default for the plaintiff, for the amount with posts. Blackadder v. Young.—L9. This case was heard at Queenstown, where the debt was admitted. Judgment for the plaintiff for the amount, with costs.

Gordon v. Puivis.—L3o 6s. Od. Mr Cook for the plafntitf. Mr Stewart for the defendant, said 1,24 was paid into coiiit The question to be settled was as to whether plaintiff or .defendant should pay the cost, L 6 6s, for drawing up a lease. After a long investigation, on w’hich it appeared that the defendant had refused tp pay the cost_ of the lease, judgment for the amount paid into court was given, plaintiff to pay costs. Jones v. Cadzo, —LSO. This was a claim for damage to health and medical expenses incurred through the action of the defendant. Mr Stewart for the plaintiff.. Mr Haggitt objected to the case being heard, ad the plaintiff was an infant, and it was sary in such cases to appoint an officer of the Court as guardian to the child, w'ho would have power to sue, and the Court having no power to appoint a guardian, the case could not be entertained. Mr Stewart replied that it was not necessary, as the father of the child had a right to recover the expenses he had been put to in restoring t e child to health, although, being only four years old, be was t >o young to render actual services to him. He cited cases in support of his view. His worship took time to consider the matter.

De Berg v. f)eardon.-LSO. Mr Barton for the plaintiff ; Mr Stout for the defendant. This was an action to recover damages for taking away the goods of the plaintiff wrongfully, for recovery of 14s for rent due. The facts, as given in evidence by the plaintiff were, that he * as living in one of the defendant’s houses. On the ISth January defendant, accompanied by White, a bailiff, entered his house, and asked if he was prepared to pay his arrears of rent. Not having the money, lie said he would go out and try to borrow the money. But the bailiff handed him a notice unsigned, which did not contain a list of goods, but did not take form'd possession. Plaintiff wnt to borrow the money, but did not succeed ; and on returning at night he found the door locked and all his goods and chattels removed. The goods seized were—sofa, 22s 6d ; setter and cushion, 12s Cd; four good chairs, 20s ; two tables, 15s ; one tea kettle, 8s 6d ; looking glass, 15s ; two pieces carpet and matting, 20s; crockery, 12s 6d ; cedar chest, 40s ; pine chest, 20s ; cooking utensils—knives forks, &c., 20s ; blankets and mattress, 20 1 ; scrap-book material, 40s; clothing, L 25 (including his wife’s); music and boolis of debt with business account, LOO He called on the defendant afterwards to ask for an inventory of the goods seized, and afterwards, by his instructions, on the bailiff. He then, in presence of a witness, tendered the 14s arrears of rent, which he refused to take. He saw the goods at Mr -'pedding’s, but ho did not see his papers nor clothes. In cross-examination by Mr Stout, plaintiff §:ud he had laid severe informations in connection with the seizure. Evidence was given as to the value of the goods. The defendant valued them at 255; White, the bailiff, on the occasion at LI ; and James Spedding at L 4 ss. His Worship, in giving judgment, said he considered the defendant’s conduct very harsh, and, after the commission of his first act, very wrongful. He quite agreed with the remarks of Mr Barton, that if landlords undertook excessive powers they should be caieful to employ persons who knew their business, and particularly that they should know their own business —that they could nob make ducks and drakes of a man’s property. The evidence as tq valge was very unsatisfactory ; but from a review of the whole case he considered the goods had been wrongfully de sained for a month ; that the distress was excessive, and that the plaintiff was consequently entitled to LlO damages. Judgment accordingly. Mr Stout gave notice of appeql.

Gilchrist v, D. Proudfoot, was a claim for L4O damages, for the wrongful conversion of a quantity of bricks. Mr Stewart appeared for the plaintiff; Mr Haggitt for the defendant, According to the opening statement of counsel, the plaintiff entered into a con. tract for the supply of 300,000 bricks for the Port Chalmers Railway, to be approved by the defendant’s manager; and an understanding was come to that any bricks found to be unsuitable should be returned. The rejection of 24,000 bricks led to disputes, which culminated in a fresh agreement being signed by the parties on January 24th, when the plaintiff agreed to remove the bricks within eight days. Armed with an order for the purpose from the defendant, he proceeded to the spot to cart away the bricks; but possession was refused by the manager (Mr G. Proudfoot). [Left sitting.]