RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 2950, 2 August 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.)

Civil Casks,

M'Mahon v. Kennedy and another.—His Worship gave judgment in this case, and said, “I am of opinion that the charge for interest cannot be sustained, as no demand for payment nor notice of intention to charge it was given. All the other items, with the exception of the passage money, are clearly precluded by the statute of limitations ; respecting the claim for the passage money. I have referred to the cases cited on both sides, but they do not appear to me to apply to the circumstances in question. lam of opinion that the contract was one ; namely, that the plaintiff should pay the whole of the defendant’s passage money ; that until he had paid the whole, the course of action had not arisen, and the last instalment haying been paid within the last preceding six years, that he is entitled to recover. Judgment for plaintiff Ll4 together with costs. Hay v. Chas. Low.—L24 8s 2d for goods sold and delivered. Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount claimed with costs.

Simpson and Asher v. Anderson.—L2s for a horse asserted to be wrongfully impounded and sold. Mr Harris for the plaintiff* and Mr Hodgkins for the defendant. The action was brought on the ground that the horse was impounded contrary to the Impounding Ordinance, 1872, and that the provisions of the Impounding Ordinance, had not been complied with prior to the sale of the horse. By the Act it is required that cattle trespassing shall not be liable to he impounded, unless the property be surrounded by a substantial fence, and notice must be given to the owner if known, or inserted in a newspapes, circulating in the district, describing the brands prior to the sale by auction. John Asher, one of the plaintiffs, said he had had the horse in his possession five or six years. He was a light bay, and was an extraordinary animal—in fact it required an extraordinary horse to carry 20st. filbs. He had ridden him 60 miles in one day, and 50 on each < f six consecutive days afterwards. He had on him six distinct brands. (Witness described them.) He received no notice of the horse having been impounded, and did not know he was sold until told by the buyer. The paddock surrounding the pound was not properly fenced. He estimated the loss at L 25, as he could have had L 23 the week before. In answer to Mr Hodgkins, witness said Smith offered to sell him the horse for LlO. Gn a former occasion he might have hesitated to pay the pound fee*, but never said the horse was not worth taking out of the pound.—fJohn Maclean described the horse. He could not he easily replaced. He considered him worth L2O, and was satisfied he had brands on him. Hugh Maclean bought a horse of Arthur Smith, that once belonged to Mr Asher. He gave either LlO or LlO 10s for him. He was still in his possession. The horse was well known He wanted L2O for the horse. He considered he was worth L 8 more now than when he bought him.—Mr R. Adams, stockman to Driver, Stewart, and Co., knew the horse. He was under his charge at the Chain Hills, Green Island, in the paddock of the Meat Preserving Company, He was then in good condition ; but after he came out of the pound he was in very bad condition—Arthur Smith, who purchased the horse at the sale at the Caversham pound, described the marks on the horse. He offered to sell the horse to Mr Asher for LlO 10s.—James Anderson, constable in charge of the police station at Caversham, received no notice of the impounding of the horse. He could not say whether or not notices were placed on the pound. He knew Anderson’s fences round his paddock. They were not Ordinance fences. About a dozen people were present at the pound sale. That was about the usual number,—For the defence, it was stated that, on the sth June, defendant found the horse trespassing in his paddock, which was surrounded by a substantial fence ; that he was impounded, examined to find brands, which were entered in the brand book. A notice was posted on the Pound Board. On the 19th June a notice was forwarded to the Gazette ; and on June 28 the horse was sold. It was admitted that the requirement of the Ordinance to insert a notice of impounding in a newspaper had not been complied with. John Anderson, poundkeeper, gave evidence to that effect. The horse was put up at the amount of charges, L 4, Mr Asher never went to him, nor was he applied to by anyone.—Robert Wallis, of Caversham, considered L 7 or L 8 a fair price for the horse. —His Worship considered that several important points bad been neglected necessary to prevent sacrificing impounded property. A notice was inserted in the Government Gazette, which few persons very probably saw ; while advertising in a newspaper circulating in the Province as required by the law, was neglected. Judgment for the plaintiff, L2O and costs.

Sparrow v. Sutherland. —L9O 10s2d. Mr Harris for the plaintiff; Mr Stout for the defendant. The defendants paid L7»> 18s lid into Court, and pleaded over-charges and set-off amounting to Ll4 11s 3d. The action was brought to recover the amount due for Avork done to the steamship Pretty Jane. The plaintiff, on being examined as to the set-off, said that he never saw the specification produced by the defendant, and the amount of set-off was for work done not included in it. Judgment for the plaintiff, LB3 14s Bd. [Left sitting.]