RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 2907, 13 June 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Yesterday. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. Prince v. Gallagher,—Llo, for cash lent. Mr M‘Kevy for the defendant. The plaintiff is an owner of racehorses, trainer, and jockey ; and according to his evidence some day between the 10th and 20th of April, he the defendant and others were in company at the Otago Hotel, when Gallagher borrowed L 22 of him to pay his losses at 100. LlO was repaid on application ; but on being asked to pay up the balance, he in very point blank terms told the p'aintiff to go to hj —ll. In consequence of this recommendation he took out a summons to compel payment. —Mr MTCeay cross-questioned the plaintiff in order to show that advantage had been taken of the defendant when intoxicated ; but nothing was elicited excepting that throughout the evening the party was gambling in different hotels, and that ultimately they hired a private room at the Otago Hotel, where money to the extent of LSO was lost by one or other. The plaintiff relied solely on his own evidence, and called no witnesses.—The defendant, Gallagher, on being called, gave a history of his evening’s doings. It appeared from his statement that at midnight, being dismissed from the Empire Hotel, they wnt ami hire-I a room at the Otago, when defendant played ayith the party at 100, and lost some L 32 or LJJ He then borrowed some money of one of the party, which he staked and lost. Defendant being told by Prince that lie was going to Chr.stchureh, and had borrowed Lit) of the money lent from another party, which he wanted to repay, paid the Lit) to him. In answer to the plaintiff, he stated that was the sum borrowed, and was all he was indebted to him. His Worship considered it very evident that the money was lent for the purpose of gambling, and could not bo recovered. He considered the transaction discreditable to all concerned ; and if the plaintiff lost the money it served him right. Judgment for the defendant, without costs. Winstanloy v, Neville.- L 5, the value of an IO U. Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount, with costs. Roberts v. E. A. Orbell.—Lß, the amount of an IO U. Judgment by default for the plaintiff. Harris v. Henderson.—Ls Is 6d, balance of account. Judgment for the plaintiff, with costs. Stohr v. Same.—LG 4s Id, for meat siipplied. Judgment by default for the plaintiff, with costs.