RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3783, 9 April 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

FftIPAT, APRIL 9. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq. R.M.)

Barr v. Simpson.—ln this case, in which judgment was given for plaintiff on Monday last for L3O, the value of a horse lost by plaintiff, and alleged to be now in defendant’s possession, Mr Harris applied for a rehearing, on the that a mass of evidence bad come to b§ht which would incontestably prove that the decision arrived at by his Worship on the bearing of the case, was, through the lack of evidence, erroneous. Mr Stout, who appeared for the other side (Mr Harris continued), was unavoidably absent from Court to-day, and therefore he did not know if the application should be pressed or postponed, but if not granted great expense and inconvenience would bf* caused to a number of witnesses who had been brought from the country to furnish the fresh evidence. One of these witnesses was the person who bred the horse, and had it in his possession until he sold it to Simpson, and the dam of the horse was still owned by this witness’s father. Other witnesses would prove that they had known the horse for seven or eight years—through all the stages of its existence, in fact. Sir Harris said he would, on a rehearing b *ing granted, produce the horse at the Court door, and the brand with which it was marked.—His Worship said that in cases of this kind he did not think it fair to the other side to grant a rehearing, unless on a very urgent statement, without the other party having an opportunity of making objection. This was a case of disputed identity, and on such cases additional evidence sometimes threw additional light. At the same time no on* who heard the evidence given during the conduct of the case could have had a shadow of a doubt but that the decision given was in accordance with the tenor of it. H** would hear the motion for a rehearing on Monday next, and in the mean time issue a warrant to stay execution. J. W. Murcott v. R. S. Bidding.—Claim L 8 7s, for damage done to and articles removed from a house, the property of plaintiff. Me Holmes, for Mr Chapman, appeared for defendant.—Mrs Murcott, mother of plaintiff, said that two months ago she bought the house and somt articles therein from defendant, who, however, would not clear out till witness got a writ of ejectment tit this Court against him. Then, when he did leave, he broke several windows, damaged beading, window fastenings, palings, locks, &c., and removed a stove and other things.—Plaintiff and another witness gave similar evidence, and stated that they heard defendant admit that the stove was sold to Mrs Murcott.—Defendant denied that he had broken the windows, said the paling was not a fixture, and that the stove was taken away by his wife.—Charles Simpson was called by defendant to speak as to the condition of the locks on the doors on the night the latter left the house, but the witness said he had not taken any notice of them.—His Worship said he had no doubt advantage had been taken by defendant and his wife, who would not clear out of the house when they had the money for it in their pockets. Judgment would be given for plaintiff for L 6, with costs, payable in weekly instalments of 10s.

Sullivan v. Cameron.—Claim L 5, for damage by trespass of defendant’s horses and cattle, Mr A. Bathgate appeared for plainsiff.—Plaintiff said he lived at Pine Hill, where he had seven acres of grass land, and defendant’s cattle trespassed on it through defendant leaving a panel open in the fences. When plaintiff asked defendant to _ keep them out he was told to go to law.—Plaintiff’s wife and another witness gave similar evidence.—Defendant, who conducted his own case, cross-examined plaintiff at considerable length, with the object, as he said, of showing that the action was brought maliciously. —Judgment was given for plaintiff for Lf, with costs.