RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3297, 13 September 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday - , September 12. (Before I. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.) Hogg v. Monson.—This was a fraud summons, defendant not having paid amount of judgment given against her in an assault case heard in this Court recently. Mr Stout, instructea by Mr Harris, appeared for plaintiff. Defendant said that she had only 16s a week, rent of her cottages, for herself and children to live upon, and these cottages were not always tenanted. Judgment was given that defendant pay the claim (L 6 7s) in weekly instalments of 10s ; in default of payment of any one instalment, six weeks’ imprisonment. Alexander M‘Donald v. R. H, Leary. — Claim L2, for hire of buggy and pair of horses. Mr M'Keay appeared for defendant, Plaintiff stated that on the 19th June George Forster, an electioneering agent, hired the buggy on behalf of defendant. On handing defendant the account the latter refused to pay the amount, saying he had not authorised Forster to hire the buggy.—Cross-examined ; Defendant said he had paid L4O in connection with the election and was not going to pay any more. —George Korster : Defendant employed me before the elec don, and told me to hire a buggy from Mr Scott’s yard and one from pluntiff, which I drove on the day of the election. Defendant told me to get one from the former, because “ Scott hail got a good deal of money on the election.” I was not aware that the Macandrew Central Committee were to payall defendant’s expense, but defendant told me that the committee would assist him in paying them. I was engaged by the committee, and specially told off to work for defendant. I fetched one voter from Blueskin, bqt that was at defendant’s request, to oblige Mr Howorth. It would be a difficult matter to say whether I conveyed defendant’s voters only.—R. H. Leary, defendant : A few weeks before the election for Caversham 1 was requested by the Central Committee to stand for that place, which I refused to do, unless on the condition that my expenses should not exceed L4O ; anything beyond that sura to be paid by the committee. The result was, however, that I had to pay LUO, being the accounts which I had myself authorised ; and as the committee had “ sold” me in this matter of expenses, I determined that they should pay all items ordered through their agent, George Forster. To plaintiff: I did advance L2 to George Forster, but on the condition that when the committee paid him for his services he should repay me; but this he has never done, and I do not intend to ask him to. His Worsh p considered there was no proof of Forster being agent for defen' dant, and gave judgment for defendant, with costs.

Campbell v, Hope.—ln this case, which was heard on the sth inst., Mr Stout applied for a rehearing, on the grounds of a discovery of fresh evidence. Mr Chapman opposed. Decision reserved, Hetherington v. Poulter.—Claim LB, for damage to a chandelier entrusted to defendant for repair. There was a cross-action in which defendant in the first case claimed L 6 Is 6d from plaintiff for gas fitting, of which L 3 19s 6d was admitted and paid into Court. Mr Stewart appeared for Poulter, Mr Wilson for Hetherington.—Poulter stated that the damage to the chandelier was accidental, and he repaired it, charging nothing. Cross-examined: The damage was done in “ tapping” the arms out of the sockets. Tapping is the only method •by which they can be got out. —Benjamin Brown stated that the damage was accidentally done in the shop,—Thomas Hethering,on, defendant: The chandelier cost twentyfive guineas, and was not now worth half that amount. There was no necessity for taking it down at all, as the fault was only an escape of gas.—George Matheson, commercial traveller in the glass trade, considered the chandelier was damaged to the extent of half its value. Cross-examined : Did not know that the two arms which were broken only cost 5s each. To his Worship : These arms would have to.be replaced from England, and would cost L 5. Judgment in Poulter v, Hetherington for plaintiff for the amount claimed, and in Hetherington v. Poulter for plaintiff for L 3 3s, costs in each case to be paid by each party. Whelan v. Norman Wood.—Claim LB, for damages sustained to property by water flowing from a dam erected by plaintiff.— Mr Stout appeared for plaintiff, Mr M'Keay for defendant. —Plaintiff stated that his fence and a quantity of soil had been washed away by the water. —Cross-examined :—1 paid for the fence, and all the posts were in the ground.—Andrew Whelan, brother to plaintiff, stated that the dam burst and carried the fence and soil “ bang away ” before it.—Cross-examined : I called on defendant to get him to come and see the damage, and he said, “How the d— am I to get any money to pay you?”—Mr M‘Keaycontended that, the flood being caused by a storm, it was p, case of vis major, or the act of God, and that therefore defendant could not be liable. —Norman Wood : For the last four months plaintiff’s fence to my knowledge has been in a very bad condition. There was always a current underneath the dam, which was aimply put up as a pathway across the gully. The fence now is only a little on an incline, and the expense necessary to put it in order would be about 12s. When plaintiff and his brother called on me they wanted 10s a day eacti for eight days, as they were miners. This I refused, but sent a man to repair the fence ; but they wpuld not allow him to do bo. —Cross-examined ; It is false that plaintiff’s soil is washed away, as my soil has on the other hand raised his laud a few inches higher.—John Pope, laborer: Defendant sent me to effect repairs to plaintiff’s fence, but plaintiff would not allow him to touch it. About half a Jay’s work would do the repairs necessary, —Cross-examined : I am a “very little” related to defendant. Am hie brother-in-law,—George Bussell, architect and surveyor, considered the damage to be about 12s. —George Trptman, in the employment of defendant, told plaintiff and his brother that he would put up the fence again, but they refused, to permit him.—His Worship thought plaintiff had established his claim for damages, but they should be small, taking into consideration the evidence given. Judgment for plaintiff— L2 and costs. Judgment was given by default in the following cases Fisher v, Bodeu : claim LI 10s, balance of account; Bing, Harris, and Co. v. Glover : claim .14 17s fid, cpsts in a case in which defendant paid the amount of the claim into Court,