RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3103, 29 January 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before James Fulton, Esq., R.M.) civil, CASES. Samuel Webb v. Michael Spratt.—Claim, 1,2 19s, for work and labor done and materials supplied.—Mr Stout appeared for plaintiff. —The following deposition of defendant, taken at Oamaru, was read: Michael Thomas Spratt said Lam a clerk at Oamaru. I was living in Dunedin until the beginning of March last Until I received the summons from the plaintiff, I never knew that I owed him any money. I never employed him to do any work for me, nor authorised anyone to employ him on my account. I never entered into any contract for paltering, either with plaintiff or anyone else, nor did 1 know that any papering was being done for me ; and I was not aware that there was any such person as the plaintiff living in Dunedin until I received the summons. My wife, who L still residing in Dunedin, hai never told me that any such work was being done, and since I received the summons I have written 10 her on the subject, but have not had any reply. As far as 1 know, the work for which I am charged cannot have been done in the bouse in which my wife is rending, and there is no other house in which I have authorised my wife to get any such work done,— Samuel Webb, plaintiff, said in March last a Mrs Spratt employed him to do some painting and paperhanging in a house on Bell Hill, she led him to believe that she was a widow, but be subsequently ascertained that she was a married woman. She also led him to believe that she had a good deal of property, and when pressed for the money said she would pay when she got money from her husband. She was not living in the house in which the work was done. —Robert Marshall, plaintiff’s servant, said be had often asked for the money, and Mrs Spratt said she would pay it when she got it from her husband.—The bench thought plaintiff was suing the wrong party, and entered a non-suit. T. Pavelitch v. C, Norman —Claim LI, for boar 4 and lodging. Defendant denied liability, Judgment for defendant, with costs. Harris v. Lambton.—Claim L2 2s, for goods supplied. Judgment by default for amount claimed with costs, t harlea Simpson v. John Muir.—Mr Harris, on behalf of plaintiff, applied for an adjournment until to-morrow. Granted. Walsh v, Schlotel. —No appearance. Case struck out.

Hanlon v. Ball.—Claim L 3 15s, money deducted as commission from a loan obtained by defendant from the Building Society for plaintiff. Mr Wilson appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Hodgkinson for defendant.—Samuel Hanlon said he had occasion to see defendant about borrowing money soipe £ime ago. He had previously seen Mr Ball, and paid Mr Jack sent him, Mr Ball said “Yon are fop'ish to borrow money at eight per cent, when yoii can get it easier out of the Society. He became involved with the Building Society and borrowed L 375 from it. Mr Ball deducted L 3 15a from the loan, which he now claimed. He was under the impression that Mr Jack had arranged the matter, and that he had only to go to defendant to get the money.—A. H, Jack said he first spoke to defendant on plaintiff’s behalf, telling him that plaintiff wanted to borrow some money as cheaply as possible. On the following day ho gave plaintiff a note to defendant, simply reminding him of what had occurred on the previous day. He did not place-plaintiff in communication with defendant as secretary of the Building Society, hpt as a money broker.—William Oram Ball said plaintiff came to him in July last to borrow ipouey tp pay for some land and houses he had purchased. He saw the property, and then suggested that plaintiff should get the money from the Building Society. Plaintiffsaidhe Would rather borrow from a private party, but after a time agreed to take it from the Society. He obtained the money, and charged one per cent, for his trouble. He first tried to get the money outside the, Building Society, but failed. He conducted the transaction as a commission agent, and not as secretary of the Society.—Judgment for defendant with costs. Bdnnett v, Renton. —-Claim, L 6, for goods supplied. Defendant pleaded non-liability, on the grounds that his son ordered and received the goods, and was of age.- Judgment for defendant, with costs.