RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4044, 11 February 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, February 11. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., K.M.)

Knowles v. Alves.—His Worship gave judgment in this case for plaintiff, for LlB 7s 3d, with costs.

m Judgment was given for plaintiffs by default m the fallowing ca*e*:—Wilson v. M'De mid, claim L 7 6a 2d, for meat supplied: v. Dariel*, LI 19s 5d cash lent. Va'entine v Holliday.— Claim Ll4, for goods supplied. Defendant admitted the debh and agreed to pay the amount in week'y instalments.

C oper v. Joslmg.—Claim for money lent. Judgment was given for plaintiff for the amount claimed, wtb. costs. Grave v. Ramsay.—Claim LIOO, damage sustained through alleged neghgence in conduct of contract H:s Wo ship gave judpm nt in this cise, sayin' that the telegrams addu-ed did not prove an undertaking on the part of defendant. No contract had been fo med, and if there was no contract there could be no negligence. Judgment would be giw n for.defendant, with costs.—Mr Barton, for plaintiff, gave n tice of his intention to appeal. Reid v. Douglas.—Claim LB4 9s Bd, on a bill of exchange. This case was fully reported a few days since and his W<rship now gave judgment. He said plaintiff signed the bill solely at the request of the defendant and on the undertaking that the defendant mu-t provide for it bt maturity. The defend dant failed to prov:de for it-, ani is consequently bound to relieve the plaintiff, who had to pay it. The matter appeared to be strictly personal between the plaintiff and deand he (His Worship) was unable to Impo't into it anything connected with the relationship of either to the Mining Company. If the plaintiff owes calls to the Company, the latter has its remedy—that is no reason why defendant shoull not fulfil Iris personal undertaking to the pVntiff to provide for the bid at maturity. Judgment for the plaintiff for the amount cla'med, with costs. [Left sitting.]