RESIDENT MAGTSTTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3501, 13 May 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGTSTTRATE’S COURT.

Wednesday, May 13. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness. George Kent, for this offence, was lined ss, with the option of forty-eight hours’ imprisonment. Breaches op the Peace.— Mary Forbes, for behaving herself in an insulting manner iu Park street, was fined 20s, with the alter* native of fourteen days’ imprisonment.— Joseph Carey* for a similar offence, a like alternative. In the last case, his Worship said that if defendant again misconducted himself, he would be liable to six months’ imprisonment with hard labor.—Defendant; 111 swear that I will never trouble you to sentence me to that.—(Laughter). Abusive Language —Mary Jane Gibbs, charged, on remand, with using abusive and insulting language to her husband, was bound over to keep the peace in her own recognizance of L2O, and two sureties of LlO each; in default of finding same, to go to gaol for six month*. CIVIL OASES Chaplin v. M-Donald.—Claim L4O, for alleged misrepresentation in the sale of two herses. This case had previously been before the Court, when his Worship reserved judgment on a nonsuit point raised by Mr Stout on behalf of defendant, which was now oven uled, his Worship considering there was a case to answer.—Mr Stout submitted that it would be amonstrous thing, when plaintiff had never asked defendant to take back the horses, to sue him on them on the ground of fraudulent misrepresentation by the auctioneer. He could prove that defendant had told plaintiff that he was offered L2B for the horses, and refused it before it was mentioned that they were Stormbird’s. It must be proved that fraudulent conduct induced the purchase —Defendant was then examined, and stated that berore the sale by Messrs M'Lean, Chaplin asked him about the two ponies in question. Before it was mentioned that they were Stormbird s plaintiff asked him what he would take for them, and he said L4O. Plaintiff offered him l 30, which he refused, as he had been offei ed and refused that at the Molyneux. Horses \v*-re more valuable then than now. He had seen the ponies recently. Ihey were not in as good condition as when sold.—By Mr Macassey : Although he had met plaintiff a dozen times, he had never alluded to the bad quality of the horses. He knew the entire Stormbird, but did not place any higher value on a horse with so great a pedigree, went by the appearance of horses as to their value.— William Williams corroborated witness’s evidence as to the conversation held by 'with defendant before the sale.— Mr Macassey called as rebutting evidence J. I. Chaplin, who stated that before the sale he was not aware that he held any conversation about any particular horses with defendant. He would swear that he never offered L3l) for the ponies.—Judgment was reserved. Borlase v. Johnson.—Claim L 75 I4s fid, for work done and labor supplied at the request of defendant for plaintiff. The original amount was L 425 14s fid, of which L 350 had b< en paid, the balance being now sued for. Mr Stout for plaintiff, Mr Macassey for defendant, who pleaded no jurisdiction and also not indebted. The jurisdiction ulea won :d arise during the progress of the ease -Mr Stout asked that the legal point should be argued at once, which was done —Mr diction. The first item in the particulars of demand was 1.825, due on the first contract; then budding an extra storey as agreed upon, L3O. This contS was really for the sum of Ll3O, and plaintiff bad disposed of and conveyed to (Fefen dan a piece of land for LlOl. These Tar' ticulars m the items should have been fSllv set-out at Ll3O. and the LIOO as a set off 7 by A* (which

proved) to less than LIOO, then the jurisdiction would be sati fied, seeing foe gro=s amount was under LIOO. Had the point been potatoes instead et hind, then in the Supreme Court the matier would have had to have been a >eb-off for J,loo—the same should be done with land —Mr ta id that defendant hid agrcidwith plaintiff to do the extra work, on condition that he should get L3O and a piece of land. it was not like as if the comraut price hid been Ll3O, and plaintiff bad afterwards got a piece of land of the value of LIOO and L3O m cash. —His Worship reserved judgment on the point raised.—Mr Stout theu stated that the question was the amount of L2O, which the defendant wanted to give less than the real amount.—Plaintiff theu stated that the building was to have been a twostorey one. He had agreed to put th« extia one, on on condition that he got|a piece of land and 1.30 in cash. The land he got, but the money he had not. Several other witnesses were also examined.—The defence w as that the work was improperly done, and not in a thorough workmanlike manner. Judg ment was reserved. Leary v. Richmond.-—ln this case, heard last week, in which plaintiff sued as assignee in the estate of Goodsir, Pell, and Co., his Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for 14 les and costs. On the point raised at the time of hearing by Mr Cook, defendant’s counsel, his Worship said he was of opinion that the defendant had more than amp e time to examine the goods during the month they were in his agent’s bands, and that on tae whole circumstances the requirements of the Statute of Frauds had been satisfied. There was no doubt that Hubbard had acted throughout as.defendant’s agent.