RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4113, 3 May 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Wednesday, May 3. (Before T. A. Mansford, Esq., R.M.)

Telfer v. Daniels.—Claim, LI 16s 9d, on a judgment summons. Mr Lewis appeared for plaintiff.—Defendant, who is a gardener, said that he bad been unable to obtain work since March last, had a wife and six children, and had applied to the Benevolent Institution for support. He gave his evidence in a very boisterous and defiant way.—His Worship ordered defendant to pay the amount claimed in weekly instalments of 10s each, or be imprisoned for fourteen days. —Defendant’s wife, who was in the Court with a child in her arms, hereupon came forward with tbe expressed determination of talking to the Magistrate.” She created 9 good

deal of noise when ordered to be removed, and was very persistent in her inquiries as to whether she was in a Court of Justice, that her husband should be sent to gaol. Defendant, however, seemed rather to enjoy the situation, exclaiming, “Oh, I’ll go to prison. What’s fourteen days that’s nothing !” Trustees of J. A. Beck v. John Power.— Claim L 3 15s, for goods supplied. Mr Adams appeared for plaintiffs; Mr Lewis for defendant.—This was a curious case, Mr Adams stating that his clients had sued the wrong man, though the person brought to Court was named Jno. Power and was a laborer, like the real defendant. Counsel, therefore, asked for an adjournment, to allow the proper defendant to be summoned.—Mr Lewis contended that his client was the real defendant, saying that he was once indebted to Mr Beck in the identical sum of L 3 15s, but had long since paid it. Counsel, therefore, asked that judgment be given for defendant, with costs.—His Worship said his own opinion was that the John Power who appeared was the real defendant, and that the amount was paid, but he would, however, grant an adjournment for a week. Bowmar v. Glozier.—A claim tor shrubs and fruit trees damaged by removal. This case was partly heard last week and adadjoumed to obtain the evidence of skilled witnesses.—George Matthews, seedsman, said the holly tree claimed for was originally worth about 10s, but it was now dead, owing to defendant having moved it to another part of the garden. The lawn was also damaged.—Defendant called another gardener, of ten years’ experience, who stated that the holly tree was not dead or even injured.—Defendant seemed particularly struck with “a piece of rough ground partly covered with tangled, rank grass,” being dignified with the name of “a lawn,” and asked anybody in the Court to call on him and inspect it. —His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for 15s and costs.

Cooper v. Bedford.—Application for an order of ejectment.—Defendant admitted not having paid his rent, but said plaintiff’s houses were inhabited by a lot of loafers.— His Worship granted the order applied for, —Defendant remarked that before he went to reside in the “Devil's Half-acre” he used to wonder how the place obtained such a name; now, however, he had discovered the reason, and also (looking very hard at plain tiff) had found out who was the devil.

R. Mahon v. J. Scoullar,—Claim, L 25 19s, expenses incurred in connection with the confinement of plaintiff’s daughter, Mary Mahon. The amount was made up by nurses’s wages, doctor’s fees, money paid for medicine, and travelling expenses. On this case being called on, Mr F. R. Chapman said he had been requested by Mr Barton to apply for an adjournment, on the ground that plaintiff had mistaken the day and was not present.—Mr E. Cook, who appeared for defendant, objected to the adjournment.—His Worship said he almost thought the court had no jurisdiction to hear the case. On reading through the plaint note it appeared to him that the case was an action for seduction—he did not say decidedly that it was so, but it appeared to him as such. Plaintiff ought to have been present—it was his duty to know the day on which his case would be heard. The matter would be adjourned till Wednesday next, the question of costa to be left open in the meantime.

Judgment was given by default in the following cases —M‘Kay v. P. Leyden, claim LI 4s for meat supplied ; Same v. Bullett, L 5 9s lid ; Same v. John Coleman, L 4 Is 2d; Cooper v. Morris, application for ejectment order, which was granted. Robson v. Miller.—Claim LSB 6s, balance for wages due for harvesting. Defendant . put in a set-off amounting to L 46 Is, for I sundry articles supplied.—Mr E. C. Strode appeared for plaintiff; Mr F. R. Chapman for defendant.—Judgment was given for plaintiff for L6O 10s, with costs.