RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3095, 20 January 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

This Dat, (before James Fulton, Fsq., R.M.) Eccles v, Robertson.—l 3 18s Judgment for the plaintiff by default for the amount with costs. Cotton v. Patrick.—Ls. Mr Edward Cook for the plaintiff, Mr W. W. Wilson for the defence. This was an action for damage for pulling down a fence and making use of a yard which the plaintiff claimed the sole right to use. Th-j property belonged to Mr Godso, and on the 23rd December plaintiff and' defendant had some words, avhen the former locked the gates, which the latter broke open. In answer to Mr Wilson plaintiff said he had a lease of the premises, and defendant claimed joint possession of the y;»rd for the past two months. Thomas Taylor said the plaintiff occupied the Peacock and himself a sh >p next door. On the 23rd December he saw defendant take his dray into the yard. Plaintiff hav--iiig locked the gate to keep Patrick out, he thought there would be a row, but lie could not see him at the gate. Mr Wilson, in opening his case for the defence, said the yard was not attached to the hotel, and, except by sufferance, neither party bad any claim to the use of it. Mr Godso, proprietor of the property, said p’aintiff had no exclusive rii'ht to the use of the yard. It was not let with the hotel. The yard was for the joint use of all the tenants, and was like a street with a gate at each end. Case dismissed. Sampson v, Alex. Grant. -L3 Gs 9d. This claim was for goods supplied on account of tome members of the Boating Club last year. —Mr Sampson’s assistant said the goods were ordered by the defendant, who agreed to be responsible f r them, and that they were taken away by him.—The defendant said he only went into the shop of Mr Sampson with the secretary of the Boating Club to give his opinion as a friend as to some outfit for the crews, but was in no way responsible for them. He did not take them away, nor agree to he responsible for the amount. The Secretary who ordered them had left Dunedin. —George Myndman coxswain of the Boating < luh, said he had one of the flannel singlets and one cap of those charged, which he took away liims* If, In reply to the Magistrate, the defendant said Mr J. F. Begg was the responsible party as Secretary to the Club, but he had left Dunedin. Defendant was willing to pay his share of the account, which was correct,—His Worship said it was not very creditable to the crew that the account was not paid. The defendant said he would render plaintiff every assistance in obtaining payment.—■ Judgment for the defendant. Dockin v. H ndinan.—Ll 10s 6d. This was a claim for medical attendance on the defendant’s son Mr Edward Cook for the plaintiff. The plaintiff said he was called to attend the plaintiff’s son, in consequence of a wound in the face caused by the-burst-ing "f a giuger-heer bottle. He received his fee for the first attendance, hut he had to vi-ifc him on three subsequent occasions, for which he now claimed payment. The defendant k'-eps the Newmarket Hotel, and said that it was understood the further visits, after sewing up the wound, should be without charge. A witness named Lyons said that he saw the money paid for the first attendance, and that on some mention being made of removing the stitches, plaintiff said he would make no charge for that. Mrs Hyudnnn said the doctor called two days after the accident to see the boy, but did not see him on the first call. —George Hyndraan, the youth, who was wounded, said the plaintiff attended to the wound twice after the accident, and dressed the sore. Judgment for the defendant. Rosshotham and another v. Alexander Campbell. -L27 Cs ICd. This was an action to recover the amount of a dishonored b'li of exchange, with interest. Judgment for the plaintiff by default, with costs.