RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3254, 25 July 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Friday, July 25. (Before I. N. Watt, Esq., 8.M.) Grant v. Begg.--Claim, ECO, fodjd.amages sustained by the illegal removal of a house of plaintiff’s. His Worship gave judgment in this case, which was heard in this Court last week, as follows:—The plaintiff appears to have erected the carcase of the building on his land, without attaching it to the freehold, and then to have let it to Ferdinand Bcgg, defendant’s brother; and he, during his lenan y, lloere l, lined, and otherwise improved one room, for which plaintiff allowed him a reduction of L 4 in his rent, Ferdinand then leaves, and the premises are let by the p’aintiff to the defendant, William Bcgg, and he, during his tenancy, floors, lines, and improves the other room. On the expiration of his tenancy he sells the building for Ll2 10s, and it. is removed from the land. Plaintiff seeks to recover LCO, as the value of the building removed. It was valued by three carpenters as follows; by the witness Smith, who made his valuation from the material after the house had been taken down and removed, at L 56 9s 7->d ; and by the witnesses Thomson and M‘Gill, who took it down, at L 25, which I am inclined to think is more nearly correct than the former. Judgment will therefore be given for plaintiff for L3O. with costs. Locke v. Buckley.—Plaintiff sued defendant on two pleas—the first for L4O, balance of wages for wrongful dismissal under a six months’ engagement; the second for LlB 13s, balance of wages for the time actually in his service. Mr Stout appeared-for plaintiff, Mr Harris for defendant.—Frederick Locke stated that be engaged with defendant on March 15, under a"six months’ agreement, for the services of himself and wife. Gn June 27 defendant told him he had better look out for another situation, at the same time tendering a cheque for wages up to that date, tv hick plaintiff refused, saying that wages up to the expiration of tbc six months were due. On this, defendant told him to stop and work it out. P aintiff, however, havng been put to expense in preparing to leave, asked for payment of these expenses, on which he would stop. Defendant refused, so plaintiff and his wifa left. George Buckley, defendant, stated that he had bad several grounds of complaint against both plaintiff and his wife with regard to neglect of their worK, and, in consequence, intimated that their services would not be required after the expiry of the agreement. He did th ; s to give them time ?to look after* another situation. Plaintiff said that he would prefer leaving at once, on which defendant offered him the amount due to him for wages up to that date, which he refused. Judgment was given for plaintiff on the second plea for 118 I3s, without costs. Baxter v. Joseph Spedding.—Claim L 3 10s 3d, for grooeries, etc , supplied. Defendant pleaded not indebted to the full amount, and a set-off of 12s 6d for a whip sold by him to plaintiff. Judgment was given for plaintiff for L2 9s 3d, with costs. Mackridge v. Joseph .Spedding.—Claim LI 16s, for express hire and cash lent. Plaintiff stated that defendant hired him one day to take a lady out to Green Island, and at the time asked him to lend the lady LI, saying that if plaintiff called on him on the following day, he would pay both amounts. He had applied for payment, but was unable to obtain it.—Defendant stated that it was the lady, on the day in question, who hired the express and borrowed the money. There being no witnesses to bear out the statement of either party, his Worship nonsuited plaintiff. Bennett v. Joseph Spedding.—Claim L 5 15s, for a suit of clothes supplied. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed, with costs. The defendant in the above three cases applied for time in which to pay the amount given against him, but the respective plaintiffs refused, on the ground that they were afraid of defendant’s leaving the Province.