RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 2859, 18 April 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Y ESTEUDAV(Before I. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.) Strode (Vicc-Prcsidcnt of the Dunedin Savings Bank) v. Duff Lilia.—This was an

action of ejectment. The defendant was ordered to deliver up the premises in his occupation to-morrow. (Before A. G. Strode, Esq., E.M.) Civil Cases. Watson v. Muir.—L6 ss. This ease had been adjourned for the evidence of a witness. The evidence produced was merely hearsay. The plaintiff asked a nonsuit, and was nonsuited accordingly. Matthews v. Reid.—Ll S?, for spokes and felloes supplied. The plaintiff is a wheelwright in the employment of Mr M‘ Donald, amf claimed the above amount. -His Worship said if there was any liability against Reid it was at the instance of M‘Donald, and plaintiff must he nonsuited. M‘Donald v. Moffatt.— L 3 10s, balance of an 1 O U for L 6 10s. —His Worship said people in Dunedin made out these documents in a very strange way. Th.-.y were neither promissory notes nor bills of An I O U required no stamp, but a promissory note did, and the one before him had a twopenny stamp, and it had moreover the usual acknowledgment “ for value received.” Such a document made it a kind f promissory note. An I O U should simply state the £ s. d. That was a cheap piece of law which he hoped the plaintiff would remember. Judgment for plaintiff, balance L 3 10s.

Teller v. Carty.—Ll Ss, for rent due. Defendant pleaded indebted about 10s or 12s. Judgment for plaintiff, 15s, together with costs.

Carty v. Teller.-—LI 10s, for services rendered by plaintiff’s wife to defendant, at Groen Island, after meeting with an acci-dent.-—His Worship said he was of opinion this was a tit-for-tat arrangement, Decani e defendant had sued plaintiff for rent, and he always discouraged such cases. Judgment for defendant. Davidson v. Townsend.—Ll, f-r pair of trousers supplied and made to order. Plaintiff said he made the trousers, but would not part with them without the money. — Townsend held he was not liable, as they had not been tendered to him.—His Worship said defendant was < learly liable, and before delivedng the goods plaintiff had a right to demand the money, and not let them out of his p ssessioo. He need not give credit unless he liked. Judgment for p’-aintiff.