RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 2986, 13 September 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

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

Civil Cases,

Talbot v, Hudson.—Ll6 9s for commission on transfer for the Rainbow Hotel. Mr Stout for the plaintiff, Mr |M‘Keay for the defendant. The plaintiff claimed the amount on an alleged agreement made with the defendant, In bis evidence the Cplaintiff said the defendant in September, 1871, being out of business, was anxious to take a hotel in town, and the Rainbow being in the market Hudson requested him to ascertain the receipts and expenditure. This he did in Hudson’s prtsence, and an agreement was made. For the work done the defendant agreed to give him 5 per cent, on the valuation, which he (Talbot) was to make. The morning bub one following, he met Hudson, who told him the valuation had been made by another person, Mr Beck. Plaintiff told defendant he should expect to be paid, when he replied, “Oh, you shall be paid ” Frederick Wain, late proprietor of the Rainbow Hotel, saw Talbot in company with

Hudson. He made out a statement of receipt and expenditure for Hudson. It was agreed to transfer his interest for L 75, and t lie valuation for furniture was L 268 6s 6d. He saw plaintiff and defendant together, and there appeared to be some disagreement between them, and Hudson seemed to poohpooh the idea of paying commission gether. Mr Burnett introduced to him, and they had been in negotiation before Talbot called in his company. For the defence, it was urged that there was no agreement made for commission. The defendant said there was no mention whatever of commission in the matter. Mrs Hudson gave evidence to the same effect. The valuator, Beck, uas called, who said he received per cent, for valuing. It was a private arrangement with defendant, as the usual charge was 5 per cent. Judgment for plaintiff, LG 11s Gd and costs.

Asher v. M'Allistcr,—L3o, the value of two cheques dishonored. Mr Harris for the plaintiff. The defendant 'asked for an adjournment, which Mr Harris said he would not oppose should it appear that the absence of a witness (Muir) was material. From the evidence of the plaintiff, it appeared that on the 2nd August Muir was indebted to plaintiff L 75 for money advanced, and in part payment the two cheques, tho amount of which was sued for, were handed to hinx (Asher) in part payment. He was not informed of any dispute concerning them. On presentation at the Bank of New South Wales, they were returned to him with the memorandum, “Account closed,” In answer to the defendant, the plaintiff said the cheques were not marked prior to his receiving them. He did not know that the cheques were given for a gambling transaction, nor was ho'aware of it at present. He wished to return the cheques to Muir, bub not being endorsed by him, found he would have to see defendant. He was not to be paid commission for recovering the money'. The defendant said S. Muir called upon him on the evening of the 20th August, and proposed to him to go into Williamson’s, and have a game at “ Yankee grab ” for two drinks. They went and played until next morning. He signed the two cheques, but having become worse for liquor had no recollection of having done so. He missed his watch and chain next morning, and never recovered it. He had staked it against Muir’s watch. He did not recollect having done so, but was told he had done so. Muir went to him the next or the following day, and asked defendant if he would give him a pound a piece for the cheques. He replied not a sixpence. He had about fifteen notes with him when he accompanied Muir, which he also lost. He went to Mrs Muir for his watch, and was told it was all right; it would be returned. About a week after the affair ho advertised in the newspapers that the cheques wore valueless. He had not seen Mr Asher on the subject prior to Wednesday.—On behalf of the plaintiff, Mr Harris stated that the advertisement cautioning the public against receiving valueless cheques was shown him some days after having bad them banded to him by Muir. The case was adjourned to Wednesday week, to give opportunity for Muir’s attendance.

M'Coll r. Duncan.—Lloo, a claim for damages through trespass, and cutting down trees on plaintiff’s property in North Harbor and Blncskin district. Mr Stout for the plaintiff ; Mr Stewart for the defendant. The case, as stated by Mr Stout, was that defendant had applied to and obtained the promise of a lease of property belonging to the plaintiff, but before any decisive terms were arrived at, or any day named when the lease should commence or for what period it should continue, defendant entered upon the property, and damaged it by cutting down a quantity of timber. [Left sitting.]