DISTRICT COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3757, 9 March 1875, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

Tuesday, March 9. (Before hia Honor Judge Bathgate.) Caerick v. Pyke. —ln this case, adjourned from the last sitting of the Court, his Honor to-day delivered a lengthy judgment. He said the numerous inconsistencies in plaintiff’s evidence could only have one effect, viz., to create a doubt as to the reliability of his evidence; and there were besides facts proved or admitted that raised a presumption against him. Although found fault with, and receiving stringent orders of a depreciatory kind affecting his position, he never assumed to be a partner ; lie made no claim other than for expenses end balance of wages when he left defendant’s service; accepted service with the ‘Guardian,’ in the knowledge that the ‘Mercury ’ had been transferred without asserting any claim; and answered defendant’s notice of dismissal from the ‘ Guardian ’ without saying a word as to his claim for damages. I'Vom these things, the other facts proved, and defendant’s positive denial, he (his Worship) was unable to come to the conclusion that a contract was proved; therefore the action for damages for breach of contract must fail. He considered L7O due for' wages, but had no power under the present plaint to give judgment therefor. Judgment for defendant, with costs. Mr Barton asked for a nonsuit. He remarked that his Honor had taken notice of all the discrepancies in plaintiff’s evidence, but had not done so with defendant’s. The nonsuit was not asked as a right, but as a favor. The judgment turned upon the point of the credibility of plaintiff’s oath against defendant’s oath.—Mr Haggitt contended that, under the circumstances, his Honor had delivered a proper judgment.—His Honor said that the leading intention of the Resident Magistrate’s Act and the District Court Act was finality; and where a case had been once gone into and fairly heard it must be very strong indeed to allow of being again opened up. It would be very hard for defendant to be dragged before another tribunal and have everything gone; over again. The weakness of plaintiff’s case was the contradictions he made in his own testimony; in his evidence the inconsistency of his accounts was clearly proved by himself. There was, however, no hindrance to bis raising action to recover the L7O. The judgment would be with costs.