RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3127, 26 February 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

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

CIVIL OASES. Norman and Another v. The Mornington Road Board.—Judgment in this case was given in favor of plaintiff for LI 7. Costa were divided. North-east Valley Road Board v. Ross.— Claim, LI Ms, rates alleged to be owing to the Board. Mr Haggitt appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr .Stout for defendant. Hugh M'Fadvcu, collector for the Board, proved the claim, and stated that a letter had been forwarded by defendant to the Board, relative to a public meeting held by the inhabitants in the district. It complained that the assessment was excessive, and condemned the action of the Board while making the assessment. It also showed that defendant had refused to retire, and expressed the intention of convening a public meeting of the inhabitants to support defendant while resisting the action of the Board. Witness stated that the valuations in one portion of the district had been altered by the Board, and that it was assumed by some that the alterations had been made without sufficient notice of the intention of the Board in this respect having been given. —Mr Mtout submitted that on the following grounds the plaintiffs must be nonsuited, namely, that no proper estimates of the rates had been prepared ; that the 49 oh and 5! Ith sections of the Act had not been complied with ; that the Board had proceeded without any proper valuation, having altered the valuation made by the valuer without authority ; that section 200 had nob been complied with; that there was no proof under section 45 that a time had been fixed for the payment of the rate; that the rate, even if all the conditions of the Ordinance Lad been complied with, was not payable under section 168. After counsel had argued the points raised, Mr M ‘Fadycn was recalled, and stated that the estimate was not made on the 12th of October, and that nothing more was done at the meat ng of the Board <-n the 26th of the same month than to confirm the proceedings of the meeting held on the 12th. Defendant could not have seen the estimate before the 26th, but he could have seen the roll. The roll, however, was not confirmed by the Board until the 26th. He extracted the estimate produced from the minutes, the various items of which were confirmed at different times. The amount of rate to be levied was approved before the roll, but no estimate such as that produced w: e adopted by the Board.—Judgment for plaintiffs for amount claimed, with costs.

Touching v. Woodmore —Claim 15s Cd, money lent. Judgment by default for amount claimed, with costs.

Cooper v. Lockwood.—Claim Lo 17s, for drapery goods supplied. Judgment by default for plaintiff for amount claimed, with costs.

Wm. Hall v. Elizabeth Low,—Claim L 5 17s fid, for board and lodging and cash lent. .Judgment by default for amount claimed, with costa

Black and Thomson v, Banbury and Andrews.—This was a claim for L2 15s sd, balance of account for timber supplied. Mr Haggitt appeared for plaintiffs ; and Mr Stout for Andrews, and pleaded not in* debted. Matthew Andrews, one of the defendants, said he never was in partnership with Banbury in a Uax mill or any other business. Ho couldnotswear that he had ever seen the note produced, buthesawa notesomewhat like it and heard it read by Mr Black. Ho said to Mr Black that if Banbury would sign it he would pay the amount. There were conditions attached, however, to the effect that he would simply pay the amount to get rid of the annoyance of being asked for it. He was not in company with Banbury when the goods sued for were ordered. He was a working man in ihe flax mill, and not a partner. He never stated anything contrary to this.—John Banbury said he purchase! goods from p'aintiffs, but could not swear that he purchased all those mentioned in the bill of particulars. When he purchased these goods Andrews and Campbell w< re partners with him in a flax mill at St. Kilda, He was the person mentioned in the deed of partnership produced. Crossexamined : Andrews put no money into the mill It was not arranged that Andrews should be admitted to the partnership on payment of a certain mm of money.—James Black, one of the plaintiffs, said he had a conversation with Andrews about the debt. He asked him if he was a partner with Banbury, and he denied it. He also asked him what position he held in the business, and he replied that he simply worked for wages. He then asked if he received any other benelit from the business beyond wages, and he said he did. A man named named Cameron was also in the business, but lie did not include him in the summons because he did not think him worth powder and shot. This concluded plaintiff’s case. [Left sitting.]