RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4014, 7 January 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Fbidat, Januaet 7. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq , R.M.) Chapman v. the City Corporation.—Claim, 1.58 G i Sd, amount due by defendants to one White, ami assigned by him toplaiu tiff. MrCook appeared fo" plaintiff; the defendants were represented by Air Massey. Town Clerk. Mr Msßiey said the only objection the Corporation had to paying the claim was that they liad been served with an order from the Supreme Court forbidding their doing so,— MrCook submitted that the order would not prevent his Worship from delivering l judgment in the case, leaving it to him (Mr Cook) to take ulterior steps—Mr Massey said defendants tyere,willing to pav the amount into Court.—His Worship said Chapman was now really the creditor of the' Corporation. It appeared to him that it was a race bi tween the two parties, aud Chapman had won it by a neck. J udgmeut would be given for plaintiff, with costs, Afetz v. Hickey.—Claim LI 3s, balance of account.due for furniture, etc., supplied and cash lent.—Helena Hickey, defend-.nt, admitted the debt, and agreed to pay it in weekly instalments of 5s each.

Metz v. Mary Connolly.—Claim, 7s, balance due on a gold ring supplied Defendant said plaintiff made her a prevent of the ring.— His Worship said the account showed that defendant had paid 5s oa account, thereby admitting the debt. Judgment would be given for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs. Metz v. M‘Lauch]an. —Claim, L2, for goods supplied, including blankets, bars of soap, a box of dice, ring, and umbrella- —Defendant admitted the debt, but asked for time. —Plaintiff said defendant bad L3O in the Savings Bank. Judgment was given for plaintiff, with costs.

Stoddart v. Collins and another.—Claim LlO, damages for trespass by defendant’s cattle, geese, and fowls. Mr Denniston appeared for plaintiff ; Mr E, Cook for defendants.—Plaintiff and three or four witnesses gave evidence as to seeing defendants’ pig's cattle, and fowls trespassing on plaintiff’s paddock. In crossexamination plaintiff admitted that he had shot some of defendants’ geese.—MrCook submitted that this was a neighbors’ quarrel, arising ou* of mutual trespasses. Plaintiff should have brought this action before, instead of shooting at the trespassers ; but he waited until defendants sued him for shooting their geese, and then came into Court with this caso.—His Worship said he must discourage people’s taking the law into their own bands as plaintiff had done by shooting at defendants’ geese, and although there was no doubt a trespass had been committed a nominal sum only would be allowed, especially as the damage done did not appear to be great. Judgment would be given for L2los, with costs.

Judgment went by default for the plaintiffs in the following cases :—Meenan v. King, a judgment summons (failing payment twentyone days’ imprisonment); C. Moore v. E. Chamberlain (Blueskin), L 35, on a promissory note; Pinkerton and Co. v. Woodman, LI 19s, for goods supplied; Metz v, Jane Henderson, 11s 10d, for furniture and sundries supplied.