RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3442, 4 March 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Wednesday, March 4. (Before J; Bathgate, Esq.j R.M.) Drunkenness —Robert Nelson and John Lcckie were each fined ss, with the option of 48 hours’ imprisonment. CIVIL CASES. Brenchly v. Seaborne.—Claim L 33, for breich of contract. Mr E. Cook for plaintiff, Mr Macassey for defendant.—The evidence for the plaintiff s case showed tha' Capt. Seaborne, master of the schooner Brenda, had agreed to take ballast from plaintiff, at 5s 6d per ton, and on its being forwarded to the ship, refused to take it, as he had made a second agreement, getting it at 4s per ten. The claim was for loss and labor, Ac, sustained through the non fulfilment of the contract.—Mr Macassey con* tended that the 17th section of the Statute Frauds bad not been complied with, inasmuch as there was no'delivery alongside the Brenda, as agreed. He therefore submitted that plaiutiff must be nonsuited. Plaintiff was nonsuited. Dunedin Waterworks Company v. Macgregor. - Claim, LI 13s 6d for water rates. Defendant paid LI 3s 6d into Court, and pleaded not indebted for the remainder. He asked to be allowed to make a statement before theplaintiffs’ case was opened, but that course was considered by his Worship to be irregular. He then informed the Bench that he defended the case, and objected to pay the amount on principle, but asked that if he exceeded proper limits to be stopped by his Worship.—T. H. Dick had applied for payment of the amount but was refused.—John Davis was called, but his evidence was immaterial.—Defendant: Are you aware that I lost LI6 worth of beer last year through a leakage in the water pipes?— Witness confessed he was not —Robert Wallace said that every person holding one of the Company’s meters was charged 5s a quarter.—Defendant: Can you tell me the number of persons holding syphons on their meters in George street ? —Witness: No, I cannot.—defendant: Can’t you give their names ?—Witness ; I know you have one.—Defendant: Yes ; I’ve found: that out to my cost.—Witness did not know any other persons having meters in George street ~R. f 'aklev, formerly in the employ of the Waterworks Company, remembered defendant getting the meter. Witness had been employe ! on the East London, New River, and sTan Yean Waterworks, but in none of these were meters used.—De fendant said that as he found out last year that through the Company’s water he had lost Ll6 in his beer account, he therefore put on the syphon day and night, and, this coming to Mr Dick’s ears, he had a meter put on. A workman in the Company’s employ told him that he would not be charged for the meter. It was against witness's consent that the meter w>s supplied. He and Mr Dick had quarrelled. Dick used to come blowing him up, and on one occasion he in his turn blowed Dick up. Defendant continued: I told him that I would baptize him in his own water.-.-{Loud laughter ) - His Worship; Will you let me see the clause authorizing you to charge for the meters ?-Mr Dick; We have no such clause. Besides the Bfch and 9th clauses of the Act, there were the amended clauses of 1871 bearing on the meters.—His Worship, having read those, asked if there were any clauses in the English Imported Waterworks Act regulating meters, and, being told there were not, his Worship said he thought that the watermeter should belong to the owner or occupier of a house, and not to the Company.. He had doubts whether the Company had right to provide meters and then charge for them. He was afraid the Company could not recover iu this case, especially as defendant objected to having the meter, and as a workman of the Company bad told him that he would not be charged for it. He did not thinly, however, that the decision ,in the case would affect any future cases.—Judgment for LI 3s 6d; plaintiff to pay cost of witness.

Pidler v. ,J.. Hunter.—This was a fraud summons under which defendant was called upon to show cause why he should not pay the sum of L 4 4s, in which judgment had be:en given against him.—Defendant stated that he was a carpenter, receiving 13s a day, and was willing to pay 10a a-week Plaintiff asked that an order for the full amount be made, as the debt had been, contracted six years ago, and he had not got a cent since, although payment had been frequently demanded.—Defendant said he was only served with the summons on the previous day.—The bailiff said the a-sista'it bailiff called at defendant’s house and was told that he was out of town, “as usual.”—Witness happening to see him in Court on the previous morning, served him with the summons. That was why it had not been served earlier.—As the summons was only served on the previous day, the case was adjourned till Monday.' next, his Worship strongly recommending defendant to settle the matter. - Waterworks Hompany v. Ephraim Machin,—Claim LI 18i 6d, for water rates. Judgment for amou-it claimed, with costs. Pearce v. Waterworks Company.—Appeal case.—Plaintiff applied to have the company’s assessment on a house valued at L3O reduced.—Tho Cojirt upheld the assessment, Ephraim Machin v. Waterworks Company.—ln this case plaintiff applied to have the assessments of three small cottages severally fixed at. JL3O, L 25, and L3O, reduced.— Machin said that the - houses were all let furnished.. : One which was occupied by ©ne Elleu Burke fetched 20s a week, and one let to Jenny M‘Leod 253. Mr Morse said that when making the valuations, he asked the rents which were paid for the houses.—A person giving the name of Ellen Burke said she paid 25s a week -The assessments were upheld. Allan v. Laurie.—Claim L2, alleged damage to a pistol.—Judgment for defendant with costa. ; [Left sitting.]