RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3196, 19 May 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, May 19. (Before I, N. Watt, Esq., R.M.)

CIVIL CASES.

Hogg and Hutton v. Cleverly.—A claim for L 8 12s 4d, amount due for groceries supplied. Judgment went by default. Welsh v, Jeffs. —A claim for L 8 9s, of which LI 2s was paid into Court. MrM'Keay appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Stout for the defendant—Charles Welsh deposed that he met defendant one morning, when they had a conversation about some shingles. Plaintiff said he would not take less than 9s for them. Plaintiff told defendant not to take them without, letting him (plaintiff) know. When plaintiff met defendant the next time, he (defendant) said he had taken 9.000 shingles. There were about 12,000 on the ground, and when plaintiff went up he only found a few bad shingles left. Plaintiff gave defendant permission to cut one cedar tree, and he cut eleven. Hearing that defendant was cutting more thau one tree, plaintiff went up to the ground, and defendant showed him six trees that ha had cut. —The defendant stated that he purchased the shingles at 9s per thousand. He was to go up to the ground and count them ; there were only 8.000 Defendant cut down eight trees; four of them were not worth more than 2s.— Several witnesses were called to give evidence as to the value of the trees, which was set down at from Is to 20s. His Worship gave judgment for L 3 3s and costs. Reeves v. Fish.—Mr Wilson for the plaintiff; and Mr Stewart for the defendant. This was a claim for L 8 10s, being the proportion of an amount which was recovered iu the Resident Magistrate’s Court from the present plaintiff. L2 3s was paid iuto Court. Mr Wilson stated that an action was brought by Mr Stewart against Messrs Reeve?, Fish and Gregg to recover the amount of a bill of costs. Mr Reeves was the ©nly one served, and judgment was |J-'cn against him for Ll2 16s 2d, Under the 22nd section of the Resident Magistrate’s Court Act, he was entitled to sue Messrs Fish aud Gregg for two thirds, their proportion of the judgment. Mr Reeves could sue one or the whole uumfyx, Mr Fish bad bis remedy (against Mi

Gregg, as was the case against Mr Beeves [n evidence given in a case heard in th< )ourt, it transpired that Messrs Fish Jeeves, and Gregg went to Mr Stewart and nenrred a bill of costs, Mr Stewart sued Mr Reeves and got judgment against him >lr Reeves paid the whole of the judgment, and having done that had a right t< 3 uo the others.—C. S. Reeves deposed hi was the defendant in an action brought before that Court. Judgment was given against him for Ll2 16s 2d, which he paid. The present defendant and Mr Gregg werr co-defendants. He had received no portion of the amount from them. Mr Stewart began to cross-examine the witness on a document relating to an engagement made by six persons to share the expense incurred in investigating the estate of John M‘oubbin. Mr Wilson objected, on the ground that the document ought to have been stamped. Mr Stewart argued that an agreement beingunder L2O did not require to be stamped; and even if it were above that amount, as the consideration did not appear on the face of the document, it did not need to be stamped. Cross-examination continued : Witness never saw the document before. His signature was at the bottom, or rather the name of the firm was. There were two person.? in the firm then. Witness was aware that Fish and Gregg were willing to pay their share, He did not recollect ever saying that he wanted to see that document, as his share would have been less. What he did say was that if he had known.of the existence of thatdocument, Mr Stewart would not have been put to the trouble he had been.—By Mr Wilson :Mr Fish had possession of that document ten days before the case came into the Court, and he never showed it to witness. He had applied to Mr Fish, in company with Mr Gregg, for h-s third. Witness was ordered out of the place. —[Some argument occurred concerning the document, which was ultimately put in, subject to Mr Wilson’s objection.]— Mr Stewart, for the defence, said the action was improperly brought, as there was not a joint liability. hen six persons incur a liability, and one of them satisfies the judgment, be can only recover one-sixth from each person. With regard to the costs, Mr Reeves had no right to incur them, and’ must bear them himself. The judgment against Mr Reeves has nothing to do with Mr Fish. As his (Mr Stewart’s) client had really paid a fifth into the Court, a verdict should be given in his favor.— His Worship said he should give costs, whatever the proportion might be.— H. S. Fish deposed that he was not served in the action Stewart v. Reeves, and was not concerned in the case, except as a witness. Witness was always willing to pay his share, as was Mr Gregg; Mr Reeves was the only one who refused.—After considerable argument, his Worship said he would consider the point raised, and deferred judgment. (Left sitting.)