RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3198, 21 May 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wednesday, May 21. (Before I. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.)

CIVIL CASES,

Dunedin Water Works Company v. J. B. Dunn.—A claim for L2 Is 10d, being the amount due for eighteen months’ water supplied by the company to defendant. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for the amount claimed with costs.

Mellyer v. Carver.—The further hearing of this case, which had been adjourned from Friday, was resumed to-day. H. Gourley had examined the waggonette, and found the axles too short and the springs too weak. Peter Sherwin, a coach-builder, examined a vehicle belonging to the plaintiff. The tires were loose, and the springs were too light. They were not proper springs for a vehicle of that description. The axles were four inches too short, and not set properly. The front of the body had gone away from the aide, owing ts the want of plates. The seats were not in their proper places. The brake was too short. The value of a good waggonette would te about from LBS to UK).— Mr Stout addressed the Court for the defence, and called Mr Carver, the defendant, who said that plaintiff selected the springs. The axles were made six inches longer than those in ordinary use. The wheels struck on one side only, if the springs had been weak the wheels would have struck on both sides. The apron was thrown in because the waggonette was not finished within the contract time. There were repairs done to plaintiff’s cab, which were not charged. The wheels were in proper order when the machine left the shop.—Peter Groves did not consider the springs strong enough. His Worship was of opinion that the springs were not of tho proper strength, nor were tho axles in proportion. He should therefore give judgment for L 8 13s 6d, with costs. Johnson v. Hay.—A claim for L 9 14s fid, for timber, express hire, &c. Mr M'Keay oppeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Wilson for the defendant, who pleaded not indebted beyond the amount paid into Court, viz., L 6 14s fid.—Judgment was given for L 9 2», including the amount paid into Court. Allan v. Sampson.—His Worship gave judgment in this case as follows: I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the defence, but, notwithstanding the inconvenience which may arise and possibly has occurred, I canuot get over the positive words of the 23rd section of the Education Ordinance, which clearly authorises either the school teacher or the treasurer to sue for and recover. With respect to the technical objections taken, I think they are curable ; and that as the defendant has been in no way prejudiced or deceived, I think they may he fairly over-ruled. The judgment would, therefore, he for plaintiff LI Is, with L2 12s costs.