RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3819, 21 May 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, Mat 21. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.)

CIVIL CASES. Shotover Gold Gliding Company v, Gregg, This case was partly heard on Monday, and Air Stout, for defendant, had raised an objection that there wasj no registration, the requisite steps iu sec. 6 of the Mining Companies’ Act n6t having been attended to, and therefore that there was no incorporation, and the company could not exist as such. On the other hand, it was contended that the statutory certificate under the hands of the Registrar was conclusive evidence of registration. To-day his Worship delivered judgment, upholding the plaintiff’s contention. He said further that the objection came too late, as it was to be presumed that defendant, when he became a shareholder, ascertained, as in the words of Lord Cairns it was his bounden duty to do, that there was no defect in the title. It would be a dangerous principle if it were held that a shareholder of a company, while willing to enjoy all the profits, could escape the consequences of the company being unsuccessful by bringing to light a latent defect which he could have discovered at first.

Barr v. Simpson.—ln this case, which his Worship called remarkable, judgment was delivered, Ihe identity of a horse was in dis pute, but two horses must have existed, each presenting points of coincidence, which ordinarily not have been anticipated to have occured in two instances. Each horse was a grey, an entire, branded on the lower near shoulder with the letter ti, and each had a scar on the near nb. A long review of the facts by his Worship was concluded by the following decision < >n the whole, while I believe that the plaintiff came to the conclusion, very naturally from the facts then before him, although he had not seen the horse for four years, I am of opinion, now, on consideration of the distinct and extraordinary facts established by the defendant and the continuous history of his herse proved, even allowing the plaintiff the benefit of uncertainty on one or two minor points, that the 1 laintiff has not made out such a clear and convmcing title as would warrant me in depriving the defendant of the horse he has in possession. Judgment for defendant, with costs. Norman and Henry v. Kirby, and Norman v, Kirby.— In these cases, claims for Ll6 and Ll3 12s respectively, his Worship gave judgmeutsjor plaintiffs, withcosts.

Scott v. White.—Claim 10s, for sixty 2d postage stamps. —Judgment was given for plaintiff, ivy de.ault with costs; and also in the case Thomson, Strang, and Co. v. J. Conuo .n’ P*34 12s 2d, for good* supplied. banner v. Puller.—Claim L 4, for work done m surveying boundary line of defendant’s pro-Blu-skm. Mr Stout &p eared for plaintiff, Mr Howorth for defendant.—After the hearing of evidence judgment Was given for plaintiff, with costs.

T V and Co. v. Edwards.-L-lmra L 46 5s Id, for goods supplied. Judgmeiit for plaintiffs, by default, with costs. Nathan v J W. Cotton.-Claim, L 5 6s, wages doe for looking after the racing mare Envy, and entry money paid by plaintiff for two of defendant’s horses. Mr Cook appeared for de endunt Plaintiff stated that defendant’s son promts-d to pay him wages if Envy won a li7 race . 3 while he wrs looking after her. Witness had the sole charge of her, grooming, feeding and exorcising her, and during this time she won five races—at Tokomairiro and Balclutha. Witness therefore claimed Ll per week for five weeks, in addition to his board and lodging which he had received. Defendant knew of witness’s engagement with his son, because witness used to do wo k about the Iw-u W * £ otton ’ seur., defendant, stated that the mare Envy did not belong to him, but T^ 1R Worship stated here that ■ h ° ul4