RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3430, 18 February 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Wednesday, February 18. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) CIVIL CASES. Dick v. White.—Claim L2 2i for printing done. Judgment by default for the amount claimed, together with costs. Somers v, Dodds.—ln this case the defendant Dodds was called upon to show reason why he should not satisfy a judgment given against him in this Court in March, 1873. —Mr Harris, who appeired for plaintiff, said the case was before the Court in the shape of a fraud summons on the sth May last, when, in consequence of defendant stating that he had met with an injury to his arm, his Worship came to the conclusion that there was scarcely sufficient evidence to enable him to make an order for the payment of the amount. He believed that he would be able to prove that defendant’s alleged injnry was a mere sham.—Defendant was examined by Mr Harris, and stated that when before the Court in May he gave as his reasons for not meeting the claim that he had met with an accident, and that he had a large family to maintain. He had been in work since that time on and off as a laborer, and earned eight, nine, and ten shillings aday. For five weeks he had been an outdoor patient in the Hospital. His average earnings were 35a a-week.— His Worship said it appeared to him that, although defendant had been receiving very good wages the whole time since May iait, at least since he had been an out-door patient of the Hospital, he had made no payment, or shown any disposition to satisfy the claim. An order would be made for the payment of tho amount, L 9 Is Bd, in weekly instalments of Ll per week, in default of any one payment fourteen days’ imprisonment. Dossect v. Robjohu.—Claim L 9 6s 6d, for work and labor done. Mr Stout for plaintiff, Mr Barton fordefendan . —The case had previously been before the Court, when Mrs Kobjoha put in the plea of coverture, and plaintiff was non-suited. Robjohn was now sueJ, and Mr Stout urged that if, as Mrs 1-iobjdm had sworn on the last occasion, the work was done with her husband’s knowledge and consent, he became liable.—His Worship, after hearing the evidence, said he was decidedly of opinion that the plaintiff had not performed his work in a perfectly workmanlike manner, consequently a deduction sufficient to meet this would be made, Judgment was given for L2 17s. G. H. Brown v. Fraser, claim 12 10a, for money lent. Mr E, Cook for defendant Plaintiff said he advanced the money to defendant—a bailiff of the Court—to execute a distress warrant for him. He thought it right to bring the case into Court on public as well as private grounds.—The defence was that the money was expended in exercising the distress wa-rant.—His Worship said that plaintiff must have been laboring under a misapprehension in believing that defendant, who was a private bailiff, and allowed to make bis own charges, was an ordinary bailiff of the Court. Judgment mini: te for defendant.