RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3310, 29 September 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monhav, Skctemuku 21). (Before 1, N, Watt, Ksq,, K.M.) M'Conniek v. Douglas.—Claim LJ 6s for runt. Defendant admitted the debt, but pleaded inability to pay. Judgment for plaint,ill’ for amount claimed, with costs, Caiter v. Hutton, Claim Dl2, for illegal detention of a horse. Mr Stout appeared for plaintill', Mr I'l. Cook for defendant, who pleaded denial and a lien on the horse. Plaintill’, who is a cabman, stated that he was boarding in defendant’s hotel, paying him ISs per week. On the 10th instant he wished to leave, and asked defendant for Ids account, saying ho would not he able to pay it all at the'time. Defendant then kept possession of one of witness’s horses, which he valued at LIO, which, with I £ loss at the rate of Ids a day through having only one horse, made up the sum now sued for. Cross-examined : 1 did not contract to stay a eertu/u time at the hotel, but was at liberty to leave at any moment. Defendant did not offer to take security for my debt, but sued mo for it, and I paid the amount I owe into Court. 1 did not use violent language to defendant. 1 may have dated to persons that I earned only four shillings a day ; but telling people who want :,o find out what you make, and making a statement on oath, are different things. I lid not pay into Court the amount for drinks, because 1 do not owe it. I never “ stuck (! p” grog, but paid for it at the time of having it. I am not in partnership with a man in the horses, but have to pay something fo

their use. Defendant offered to give up the horse on Saturday last, but I would not take it, as I had left my case in Mr Stout’s hands, and I might have been doing wrong.—James Hutton ; I am an innkeeper, and received plaintiff as a lodger some months ago. When he was going away he owed me for a month s V>o*rd and lodging, and other items, but said he had no money, and abused me, I then detained his horse, but offered it to him on Saturday. Cross-examined : 1 will net swear that the card produced is one of mine, although it has on it my name, the name of my hotel in Walker street, and my scale of charges.—Judgment reserved. Hutton v. Carter.—This was a crossaction, in which defendant in the last case claimed 1.5 2s for board and lodging, stabling, and drinks. Defendant paid L 4 4s into Court, and disputed the remainder. Plaintiff stated that defendant did not have all the drinks himself, and. in answer to Mr Stout, that they were supplied in glasses, not in imperial measures. Also, that though charging defendant 5s a week for stabling, his (plain! iff s) cards had on them “ stabling free.” Judgment for plaintiff for amount paid into Court. Coates v. Alex. Campbell.—Claim L 194 ss, reduced to LIOO to bring it within the jurisdiction of this Court, for services rendered. Mr Stout appeared for plaintiff, who stated that defendant engaged her as housekeeper at the rate of 15s per week. Witness had been in his service for m»re than five years, and had received only L3O, although defendant had often promised to pay her. Judgment by default lor plaintiff for amount claimed, with costs.