RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3276, 20 August 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Wednesday, August 20. (Before I. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.)

Waterworks Co. v. Hall.—Claim L 3 10s, for eighteen months’ water rates. Defendant admitted liability for nine months.— Mr Dick, Secretary to the Company, contended that, under the 6th section of the Waterworks Act, defendant was liable for the longer term, he having been given notice of valuation and assessment for that period, and not having appealed against such valuation. Witness not producing proof of service of such notice, accepted judgment for Ll 15s, with costs. Myers v. Prosser.—Claim L 4 15s, for services rendered to defendant during the late election for a councillor for South Ward, Mr Stout appeared for defendant. Plaintiff stated that on the day after the nomination he asked defendant for employment during the election, stating that he should vote for defendant in any case. Defendant was in compauy with a Mr Gray, who, after advising defendant to engage witness, said “Go on and work immediately,” defendant adding “ Do all you can. ” Witness accordingly commenced canvassing. Witness used to reporthis progress to Mr James, secretary to defendant, who also sent him several errands.—Crossexamined : I am a cook by profession, but, up to the nomination day, was working in the discharge of a vessel. I do not know the name of the vessel. Do not recollect Mr James giving me any instructions on the polling day. I had put down my name on defendant’s committe. The duty of each member of the committee was to canvass a certain district of the Ward. The letters produced were written to defendant for me by two friends named “Chili” and “ Ted.” Mr Beck, then a candidate for another Ward, offered me a job, but I refused, considering myself engaged by defendant. Witness called John Gray, fish-hawkor, who stated that, on the nomination day, plaintiff and defendant were talking together near the committee rooms. Defendant asked witneu if he knew plaintiff, to which he answered that plaintiff was on the electoral roll. Defendant then gave witness a roll, and he gave the one he had before to plaintiff, with a pencil, telling him to do what he could.— Cross-examined : Was a member of defendant’s committee, and, as such, did not expect payment for his services.—William Hildreth : Saw witness going round the Ward canvassing during the week of the election. Was one of defendant’s committee, but was under the impression that his services would be paid for. Witness therefore sent in an account for LI 7s 6d, and an item for money laid out, which defendant paid, “kindly” remarking that he did so as witness was hard up.—Crossexamined : Members of Committee are not generally paid, unless they are employed iu canvassing.— George Soanlan, oil and color

merchant: Was chairman of defendant’s committee. Did not bear defendant state that he was in the hands of his committee, and that he hoped they would be merciful to him. Did not hear any question as to payment, but was under the impression that none of the members of Committee would be paid.—Mr Stout submitted that there waq n« proof of engagement, with the exception of on the polling day, for which defendant would allow 10s, and also LI, which plaintiff dai med for money expended. —Evan Prosser : I remember seeing plaintiff on the nomination day, and giving him a roll, thinking that he was working like the other members of committee. I did not engage his services till the polling day. Gave plaintiff a roll to canvass with for me, certainly not for Mr Fish,—His Worship considered that there was no contract or proof of engagement, and judgment would therefore be given for plaintiff for the amount paid into Court only, viz , LI 10s. Niehnll v. Popham. as adnrnistrator in the estate of Alexander Qarside, deceased. — Claim, LI 5 14s lOd, for money paid on account of the said A. Garside. —Mr Stout appeared for plaintiff, and Mr M ‘Keay for defendant. —Adam Kicholl stated that he knew the late A. Garside in Scotland, and advanced him money to pay his passage and to buy an outfit. Part of this had been repaid, leaving the balance claimed. Cross-ex-amined : When Garside paid witness any cash it was understood to be deducted from the whole account, which included an item of 12s. The 14s paid at one time was not in payment of this 12s, hut off the general account. Remembered borrowing money from Garside on one occasion, but repaid it, because the latter was in need of it James Popham, defendant, knew Garside intimately. The latter was in.a good position at the time of his death, and not likely to have a claim of this character outstanding against him. When plaintiff handed him the present account, there was one also for funeral expenses, which witness paid. Witness had looked through Garaide’s bosks, but could find no particulars of any amount due to plaintiff. Had heard rumors as to the question of passage money, but fancied the “ boot was on the other leg,” as he had often heard Garside say that he had been kind to plaintiff.—Cross-examined ; When Garside died there was only L 7 10s in cash in his estate. In answer to the Bench, witness stated that claims against the estate had been sent in to the amount of about L 454, of which L 260 had been paid. Judgment was reserved.

Judgment was given by default in tlie following oases : —Bird v. Janies Low : claim LlO. for dishonored acceptance. Wilson r. Nicholson : claim L 3 ss, balance of costs in a case of bankruptcy. (Left sitting.)