RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3835, 9 June 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Wednesday, Juke 9, (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) CIVIL OASES. Judgment was given by default for plaintiffs in the following cases, with costs :—Evans v. A. J, Lynd, claim L 5 9s 2d, balance of account ; Dowse v. George Smith, L 5 ss, for a saddle; Jessie Griffiths v. Wm. Greenwood, L2 ss, for three weeks’ wages due. Kobert Williamson v. Robert Hagan,—Claim L 4 Bs, for rent It appeared that the wrong party bad been sued in this case. Defendant said that he had never rented a house in Dunedin; he was living at Waikouaiti, and had to leave bis work to come into town. Judgment was given for defendant, with costs (L2 8s). „ M - W* Hawkins v. the Corporation of the City of Dunedin was a claim of L 26 ss, for valuation on certain City reserves in May, 1873. Mr E. Cook appeared for plaintiff, and Mr smith defended.—For the defence it was pleaded that plaintiff had undertaken to do the work at a special contract—the charge not to exceed ten or twelve guineas. The amount sued for (twenty-five guineas) might be a reasonable price : but plaintiff having agreed to do the work for the sum stated, they re fua ed to pay more.—Plaintiff stated that Mr Fish, the then mayor, met him in Princes street about the middle of May, 1873, and told him that the Corporation wanted some reserves transfened, and asked mm, as City Valuator, to make a valuation of the property. He agreed to be made a sworn valuator to. enable him to do so, Mr Pish saying that the only sworn valuators In the city— Messrs Gillies and Street, and W. 0. Baft—would want L7O or LBO for the job, and guaranteeing him (witness) Lls or L2O for doing it. This was the only conversation or reference to remuneration 'made, and no third party was present. Mr Fish further told witness that Mr Massey, the Town Clerk, was waiting for them in the Registrar’s office.—By Mr Smith:

that in th* conversation fho befor ® P*** Main'soflU, °* 4611 or twelve guineas as remuuera* S2 mentioned. If Mr Fish swears mentioned, 1 shall most emphatically contradict him.-TU was niton* tiffs case.-—Mr Smith, in stating the saw for Aedefmioe, «ud that withoutwisMngJto impugn phunttTs teraaty, he would, by the feSS* oon^ dict ? r y eridence whfchiie Intended to woduce, be compelled to treat it as a ■matter of-deficient memory.—H. ft tailed the conversation which he hd? with plaintiff re the sworn valuation fee of the reserves. He proposed that the valuation was not to exceed ten or twelve guineas, and plain* to S? nsent ® d - They then proceeded to Mr Mam s office, and shortly after leaving ««w tneßß *tr m i presence, said. Now, Hawkins, you understand the arrangement is not to exceed ten or twelve guineas.” Witness’s Impressiou was that Hawkins s reply ensured Consent. Witness positively swore that ten or twelve guineas was the sum mentioned. He thought the laber to Mr Hawkins would be very small and that he (Hawkins) would bo guided ST *. c? Massey’s valuation. Hawkins !«»<> that his professional reputation required that the Work should be carefully done.—J.'M. xSmuP' . d lP° B ® d fc hat immediately after leaving Mr Main s office on the day in question. Mg . N . ow \ yo« understand, Hawkins, sc £ nce ,. w to he ten or twelve guineas/” replied, “I understand,” or something to that effect. His Worship “ e ®s2 rße iu ordinary oiroumstaaoes probabiy would not be unreasonable, although it must be borne in mind that professional men having dealings in large sums do not charge the same rate as if they were valuing a small property j and it must also be keptin view that joint stock companies and Corporation* were generally charged a much mom moderate sum than when valuing a single item, ine question in this case was whether (here was a special agreement. Now, what was the evidenc « on the one side was that of (plaintiff, who swears distinctly that that there was no definite contract—there may have been a price mentioned, and that wide was Lls or L2o—but nothing special was determined upon at the time. PoV the defence rtif “e evidence of the then Mayor, and of the Town Clerk, directly contradicting plaintiff, so that he (his Worship) must weigh the testimony on. both sides, ana see on which lay ?®L Preponderance. The testimony of the plaintiff was always subject to insensible i 5® ,V emg an iuterested party might lean to hw own side ; while the tiro witnesses on the other side were not interested H 1 , th ® slightest degree; so that on the one sine he had a witness personally interested, and on the other side two uninterested witnesses, and the preponderance of evidence wut? B***s to the uninterested persons. ♦u,V iX 'T/°f 8 e T idence WM confirmed by the Town Clerk, and by the correspondence produced. In the whole oiroum stances, without in JJ® S*-¥5 4 egree impugning the veracity of the plaintiff, he was bound to say the weight of evidence was in favour of the defence!— Judgment was givenfor defendant, withoosts.— frf, w . kin ® (throwing the correspondence on I 1 know T the value of th« oath of the Tovra Clerk now. I make a present of the fee to the Benevolent Asylum.—Mr Smith s I must ask your Worship to suppress any rewlShii M “ s ®y» to the Court.—His Worship: I consider the remarks very unbe-commg.-Mr Hawkins: Of course, it’s only a