RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3129, 28 February 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

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

Neill and Co. v, Boyle, and Boyle v. Neill and Co.—-His Worship gave judgment in these cases. In the farmer, LlO 16s 6d would be deducted for damage to fifteen tons of potatoes sent to Wellington ; judgment would, therefore, be for L 73 7s Id. In the latter case, judgment would be for plain- ! iff far L 34 4i, In aocordan.ee with the clause of the Resident Magistrates' Act, regulating cross actions, the judgment would therefore be far Neill and Co. for L 39 3s Id, with costs in tho first case, but not in the second Brown v. Nish.—Claim L2l 17a 9d for drapery goods supplied. Judgment by default for amount claimed with costs. Wain v. Barr.—Claim L 25 for loss and wrongful conversion of a colt alleged to be the property of plaintiff. Mr Stewart appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Stout for defendant. Frederick Wain said on the 20th of ho owned a grey colt branded It on near shoulder. On or about that date he met the defendant, and asked him if he had paddocking for a young colt. Defendant replied in the affirmative, remarking that the colt would be near the house and under his eye from day to day. It was then arranged that plaintiff should send the colt to defendant's farm, defendant undertaking at the same time to take charge of it. He sent it on the 27th of September. Soon after, froip received, be wwfc fa

Mr Barr’s farm, and found the colt badly cut about the legs aud hip from having got entangled in the wire fence. He observed, at the same time, that the wires of the fence were hanging loose. About two or three months alter this he received an intimation from the defendant that the colt had got away, and that he had reported the matter at the police-station. At another time plaintiff said that the gate had been left open, and that a mare belonging to him went away with the colt. Subsequently he made a written demand on defendant for the colt, but received no reply. He then saw Mr Barr, aud demanded either the colt or compensation. Defendant replied that he had taken the greatest care of the colt, and refused to give any compensation. He estimated the present value of the colt at 1.25, Cross-examined : He did not believe that defendant had converted the colt to his own use. He did not know what had become of the colt.—John Lewis said he took the colt out to defendant’s place. Ho considered the colt then worth from L 7 to LlO. —The defendant, Wic. Barr, said be agreed to allow the colt to run in his paddock for a shilling a week, but at the same time stated to plaintiff that he would not be responsible for anything if it went wrong. He did not consider the colt worth more than L 5 at the time it was brought to his place. He did not adverse for the colt after it had wandered or was taken away. When the colt got fast in the fence he thought that two days must have passed before it was discovered. Judgment for plaintiff for Ll3, together with costs. James Gall v. Alfred Josling.—Claim LIOO for butcher meat supplied. Judgment by default for plaiutiff for amount claimed, with costa.

[Left sitting.]