RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4107, 26 April 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wednesday, April 26. (Before T. A. Mausford, Esq., R.M.)

Cooper v. Martin.—Claim on a judgment summons. Defendant was ordered to pay the amount in seven days’ time or go to prison.

Cooper v. Edwards.—Claim H 6s, for rent and damage done to windows. Judgment was given for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs.

A. Mercer v. F. Hobcroft.—Claim LlB, on a judgment summons.—Defendant pleaded that he had filed his schedule, but it was elicited that lie bad not been adjudicated a bankrupt.—Plaintiff said he brought the action on account of defendant being a man who made a practice of never payinganybody, though lie was a carpenter earning good wages. With his earnings he had purchased some property and erected a house, which ho had handed over to his wife. Witness wished to show him up as an example to others who showed a similar want of principle.—Defendant said he had not done any work for sixteen months, and plaintiff could not prove what he said about witness’s pro r perty.— His Worship ordered defendant to pay the amount claimed at the rate of L 8 per month, the first payment to be made on May 10 ; in default of any payment to go to prison.

J. Dixon v. Topham,—Claim LlO, for trespass on plaintiff's laud aud cutting down and taking away timber therefrom. Defen dant did not appear. -From the evidence of plaintiff and of one Duncan Cameron it ap- { feared that defendant had taken away six oads of timber valued at about Ls.—His .Worship gave judgment for that amount, with costs.

E. Wilson v. M ‘Liskey.—Claim LG, cash lent. Mr M‘Keay appeared for plaintiff ; Mr Harris for defendant.—Plaintiff said she was cook in defendant’s service at the Waverley Boarding House until about a month ago. In October last witness lent defendant L 6 to pay his grocer’s bill with, giving him a L 5 and a LI note. She had often asked him for it back, but be denied Laving borrowed it The housemaid was passsing through the room when she ha dod the money to defendant. Cross examined ; Witness did not ask defendant for the money when she left his service, because he was in gaol at the time for being a habitual drunkard.—Mrs Hall, formerly housemaid in defendant’s service, said she remembered passing through the kitchen one day when plaintiff was handing defendant some notes, and she heard defendant say : “This is a greenback, it is a L 5 note.” Cross-examined : It was not probable that defendant was given the money to plaintiff, for he never paid the servants a farthing. Mrs M‘Liskey always paid them.—Defendant said he never borrowed more than 2s 6d from defendant, and that was repaid to her. She never asked him for the L 6 until March, when they met at the races. Cross-examined: Witness was in gaol for three months from November 25 for being a habitual drunkard.—His Worship considered the loan fully proved, and gave judgment for the amount claimed, with costs.

Bowmar v. Glozier. Claim, for damage done to a hollytree and three goosebony bushes on plaintiff is property, leased for a twelvemonth to defendant.—Plaintiff s evidence was to the effect that the defendant had ruined the plants by cutting them up and removing them to different portions of the garden,—.Defendant claimed that he had improved the plants, if anything, and instanced a gooseberry bush which was now cut up into several line bushes, whereas previously it had borne only three gooseberries. —The case was adjourned to enable plaintiff to bring Mr Matthews, gardener, to give evidence as to the damage done.

Hooper v. Hooper. —Claim L 5, for the wrongful conversion of forty pair of fowls, the property of plaintiff.—-Mr M'Keay appeared i .u- plaintiff; Mr Howorth for defendant, This was a case of a father suing his sou for selling fowls and converting the proceeds to hia own use. Defendant set up a plea of infancy. The sou lived with his mother, who was separated from plaintiff. —After considerable discussion between counsel and hia Worship as to the advisability of settlingthecaseprivately, MrM‘Keay saying his client had offered to do so if defendant would say to whom ho had sold the fowls, it was discovered that the information had been improperly drawn up. In consequence hia Worship, on Mrs Hooper proving that defendant was under twenty-one years of age, gave judgment for the latter, with costs.

Judgment was given for plaintiffs by default in the following cases ; M‘Farlane v. James Crawford, claim 12s lid, for groceries supplied ; aud Kamo v. Wm. Grant, LI 14s lid, a similar claim, ' v ‘.