RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3756, 8 March 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Monday, March 8. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq,, R.M.) Pawnbroker’s License.— Abraham Solomon applied for a renewal of his license, which was granted. OIVII, oases. Murcott v. Hiokling.— Claim LlO, for breach of contract. Mr Stout appeared for plaintiff, who stated that he had purchased from defondant & house for L2BO, on the understanding that the latter should give up possession of it one week after the sale. Three weeks and more had now elapsed, but defendant would not clear out of the house, and on plaintiff’s speaking to him about it the latter assaulted him.Defendant said that houses were very scarce and he could not get one to live in. —IDs Worship said it was a ridiculous defence; it was not plaintiff’s fault that defendant could not get a house. The latter should not have sold his own and signed an agreement to clear out of it. Judgment for plaintiff for L 3 3s and costs ; defendant to give up possession immediately. H. Falconer v. G. Barker.—Claim L 5 10s, on a fraud summons for board and lodging. Defendant was ordered to pay the amount in monthly instalments of LI each. Hogg and Hutton v. F. Nichols.—Claim L 43 4s 7d, amount of two promissory notes.— Defeudant, who is toll-keeper at Taieri Ferry, admitted _ the liabiHty, but asked time to pay it in.—His Worship : I must leave you iu the bands of the plaintiff. -Defendant: Of the police I—His Worship; No; of the plaintiff, I said.—Defendant: Oh 1 I was going to say it would be a case if you left me in the hands of the police.

' Blackadder v. Rankin.—Claim, L 7 18s 3d. for goods supplied. Mr Stewart appeared for plaintiff; Mr Stout for defendant, who disputed only L2 9s 9d of the amount, saying plaintiff agreed to deduct that sum as discount, —Judgment for plaintiff for L 4 8s 6d and costs.

Ciawford v. Vezey and Smirdon.—Claim LlO, damages sustained through defendants not giving up possession of certain premises, the property of plaintiff. Mr Barton appeared for plaintiff; Mr Stout for defendants,—Plaintiff stated that in June, 1873, he let a shop in the North-east Valley to Smirdon for JOs per week; and in September, 1874, Vezey’s name appeared over the door, he paying I2s per week. Witness claimed 15s per week, but Vezey declined to pay more than 12s. Notices to quit were served oh both defendants. Smirdon carries on business in the shop, and Vezey’s name is up. The place is worth 15s per week. ~Cross-examined: Witness charged defendants 20s per week on purpose to get them out. He did build the place for Smirdon, and 10s per week was offered by the latter for it, if erected. No tune was mentioned, but Smirdon kept asking for a lease. Although built for him, he was only to have it fora week. Witness knew Smirdon had offers at the same time of other places.—George Smirdon stated that plaintiff built the shop for him; a verbal agreement being made that witness should have it for two years, at 10s per week rent; at the end of that term a seven years’ lease to be entered into. Mrs Crawford, wife of plaintiff, said that she did not remember telling Vezey that by his going into the shop Smirdon’s tenancy was broken. Vezey paid the rent, which witness told him would be 12s.—V. James, till lately in Smirdon’s employment, said he had frequently heard plaintiff say the shop was Smirdou’s for two years.—John Vesey said he was not in possession of the shop since he wrote to plaintiff stating_that he had assigned it back to Smirdon. He never got possession from plaintiff, but took it from Smirdon for a time in order to look after hia °wn interests.—Mr Stout submitted that no proof had been gi/en that defendants were joint tenants.—Mr Barton contended that both were in possession and should be ejected.— Judgment was given against defendant Vezey for L 6 ISs; Smirdon’s name was struck out, and he was allowed LI Is costs. • [Left sitting.]