RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3338, 31 October 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, October 31. (Before I, N. Watt, Eaq., R.M., and His Worship the Mayor,) Drunkenness. —William Lilly, for being drunk and disorderly at Green island, was remanded till Monday. Theft. —Kobert Grinmon avus charged with stealing from the RaiuboAV Hotel a coat and other articles, of the A r alue of 10s. Accused pleaded guilty, saying ho Avas drunk at the time. He Avas sentenced to fourteen days’ imprisonment with hard labor. civil. CASES. The Halfway Bush Road Board v. The Dunedin Watenvorks Company. Claim, BIOS tor rates due on sections 88, 90, and 22, Upper Wakari, assessed at L2,1G0 at 12d in the pound. Mr Stout appeared for plaintiffs, Mr Holmes for defendants,—William Johnson, clerk and collector to plaintiffs, proved the signatures of the chairman and members of the Board in the Books of the Board, and produced the various papers used Avheu a rate is levied. —James Doughty, clerk to the Waikari Road Board, Avas valuator. The rate levied was 124. in the L. Cross-examined ; A previous rate had been agreed upon, but it was never struck and avhs abandoned. Some people paid Avitness that rate.—Eobeit Bossboth.-mi, member of the Board, had signed the rate which Avas levied. Another

had been agreed upon before, but it was not signed by witness or the other members, and was rescinded at the next meeting of the Board. Mr Holmes contended that the present rate was a nullity : that it was a mere rod, the rate book not bearing on its face anything to show why it was made, or by whose authority. The learned counsel on both sides argued at great length, and his Worship reserved judgment. Judgment was given by default in the following cases Matthews, Baxter, and Co. v. Bow land F. Baxter : claim LB9, for. dishonored bill; Guthrie and Ashor v. Jacob Sch.niok : claim Ll-.G los 2d, for dishonored hills.

Stamper v. J. T. Bellamy and William Lane.—Claim Ll2 7s, plaintiff's bill of costs for professional services rendered to defendants, vendor and vendee of certain sections in the township of Kensington. In this case his Worship gave judgment as follows : The -plaintiff says that defendants jointly instructed him, that he acted for both parties, and that lie apprehends that they arc jointly and severally liable to him for the whole of his charges, as they came together to him, without making any arrangement with him respecting them. The defeudant Bellamy says that nearly Lb of the claim is for an abortive conveyance, Ac., ami that the rest of the charges were incurred solely in the interest of the defendant Lane. The defendant Lane says he has already paid the plaintiff LG Ws B<l, which amount includes the plaintiff’s charges for the subsequent and effective conveyance, and is all that the plaintiff originally sought to charge him with, but ho docs not produce the biff of costs itself. Having numbered the charges contained in the plaintiff’s bill, from 1 to 25 consecutively for the convenience of reference, I proceed to give the grounds of the decision at which I have arrived. I consider that the evidence shows that the first conveyance was abortive for more than one reason, and that the plaintiff practically admitted it to be so when lie prepared another, and, as he says, a better one. and the conveyance being abortive, the bond founded thereon was abortive likewise, and no charge should have been made for either, or for services incidental to either. The charges, therefore, numbered 7, 8, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24, amounting to LG 4s Bd, are disallowed. Two copies of memorandum of sale do not appear to have been required or prepared. Charge 14 is therefore reduced from ten shillings to five. Charge 17, instructions to register, six shillings and eightpeuce, is also struck out. The remainder of the charges, amounting to L 5 11s, are all for services performed in the interest of the defendant Lane, and for these Lane alone is liable, notwithstanding the memorandum of sale states at the end of it that defendant Lane is “to bear the expense of and touching the deed of conveyance, except the execution thereof, which, and all expenses previous thereto, shall be borne by the defendant Bellamy.” As this claim appears to have been inserted in the memorandum without instructions and without the knowledge of either of the defendants; for the defendant Bellamy says only half of the first page of the memorandum was read over to him, and nothing about expenses was read to him ; and he is corroborated by defendant Lane, who says: “There was no agreement between Bellamy and myself about the costs. When Mr Stamper read the agreement, Bellamy objected to sign it because he did not understand it. Mr Stamper was my solicitor from the commencement; there was no agreement as to who was to pay the costs.” Judgment, therefore, will be, with respect to the defendant Bellamy, for him with costs; and with respect to the defendant Lane, for the plaintiff L 5 11s with costs.