RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3126, 25 February 1873, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

V^tEiquv. (Before A, C. Strode, Esq., R.M.)

CIVIT, PAS EM,

Gray and another v. Diamond. —This case was part heard on Friday last. Mr Stout appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Han is for defendant. Counsel for defendant submitted that the plaintiffs must bo non suited on the following grounds:—(l) That at the time (he 10U was drawn there was no debt duo from defendant to plaintiffs, (2) That the IOU was given in consequence of a misstatement of facta by one of the plaintiffs tq defendant. (3) That at tlje time the 10U was di awn there was no account stated as existing between plaint ffs and dc ondtiiit. (4) That the account, if stated, was one between Daljjicl aqff plaintiffs. (5) That »0 uusideratioi) wai by

plaintiffs to defendant for the 10 U. (6) That the 10 (J was given for the debt of another person, and as there was no consideration stated on the face of it, it was void by the Statute of Frauds. (7) That the lull was conditional, and not an absolute acknowledgment of a debt. (8) That the conditions on which the lOU would or might become an absolute acknowledgment of a debt wore never fulfilled. (9) That the sum for which the 10U was given never became due from defendant to Dalziel, and consequently there could be no probation of a debt that never existed. His Worship said he would reserve the nonsuit points raised for consideration, but would, in the meantime, take any evidence defendant had to give. —N. V. A. Wales, architect, was then called. He staled that he saw the building frequently while in course of erection. When the walla were erected they very soon showed signs of going to pieces. The front wall bulged out considerably. The roof was not quite finished at this time. The front wall was in such a condition that, in his opinion, it would have fallen had it not been secured by bolts. He saw the building recently, it was in a dangerous state, and unsafe to live in. It was evident that the interior had not been finished in a faithful and substantial manner. From the knowledge he had of the building he had no hesitation in saying that he would have refused the contractor his final certificate. He would have stopped the work or forced tie contractor to fulfil his contract more faithfully. The back wall of the house was also split up and in a dangerous state. This concluded defendant’s case. Judgment was reserved.