RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 3163, 9 April 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

This Day. (Before James Fulton, Esq., R.M.) civil Cases. Almao v. Cbaironi.—Claim L 3, the value of two pictures left with defendant to be framed —Defendant pleaded not indebted.— Plaintiff said that ten mouths ago ho left two pictures with defendant to be framed, and although he had frequently asked for them they had not been returned. Defendant ■sked him to .accept other pictures in their place ; but he refused to take them. The pictures were worth 30s each to him ; but defendant knew their value better than he did. —Defendant said the pictures produced were a better quality than plaintiff’s. Those produced were worth 2s 6d each ; but plaintiff’s were worth only about 1« 6d each. -Jolley said he framed the pictures in dispute ; they were worth about Is each. — Judgment for 10s, together with costs. Mitchell v. Perkins—Claim Ll4 12s, amount of dishonored acceptance. Judgment by default for amount claimed, with costs. Jack v. Rodgers.—This was a fraud summons. Defendant did not appear, and a warrant was ordered to if sue. Sea-side Road Board v. Steadman. —Claim, 13s lOd. Defendant said she did not object to paying rates, but thought it not right to demand rates twice in one year.—Mr Howorth appeared for the plaintiffs, and explained that defendant must be laboring under a mistake.—Alex. Cameron proved that defendant had not paid the rate for 1873. —The defendant said that when she paid the rate in 1572 she understood she was paying the rate for 1872 and 1873. —Judgment for amount claimed, with costs. Same v. Fagan.—Claim, 17s 6d, rates. Defendant pleaded not indebted. Plaintiffs were nonsuited. Same v. Larnach.—Claim, L2 Bs, two years’ rates. Mr Howorth for plaintiff, and Mr Stout for defendant.—Counsel for defendant objected to the claim on the grounds that no notice, in accordance with the 48th and 49th sections of the Ordinance, had been served on the defendant, and that a proper rate had not been levied. -Plaintiffs were non-suited.

Evans v. Thompson.—Claim, Lll 11s 7d, amount of account rendered. Mr Harris appeared for defendant, and pleaded not indebted.—Plaintiff said that last year defendant and another man were working on the Waikouaiti river, and obtained goods from his store. In September they separated, but before so doing they acknowledged their respective shares of the full amount owing. Subsequently defendant paid 1 3 on account. He now sought to recover the balance. He furnished defendant with a bill of particulars of the claim now made. Defendant stated, when working up the Waikouaiti with Branstone it was clearly understood that each was to pay his share of the stores obtained from plaintiff. Witness had paid his share in gold. The bill produced was not a correct statement of the account with plaintiff. If plaint ff produced a bill showing the account as it existed at the time Branston and defendant separated, the lattey was prepared to come to a settlement and pay any balance owing. Plaintiff was nonsuited.