RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4119, 10 May 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Wednesday, May 10. (Before T. A. Mansford, Esq., R.M.)

Judgment went by default for plaintiffs in the following cases:—De Beer v. Healy, claim L 9 6s, for goods supplied ; Burton, Bros. v. M'Lean, L 4 2s, for photographs; Smyth and Marsh v. H. Holmes, L 5 Is 6d, for work and labor done.

Cooper v. Connor.—.Application for an order of ejectment. Defendant expressed his willingness to leave as soon as he could get another place.—His Worship ordered him to clear out within a fortnight. Cooper v. Sherman.—Claim 13s 6d, for one week’s rent and a broken pane of Defendant said he gave plaintiff five days' notice of his intention to leave, but tbi« plaintiff denied.—Judgment was given for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs. Mahon v. Scoullar.—Claim L 25 19s, expenses incurred by plaintiff in connection with the confinement of his daughter. Mr G. B. Barton appeared for plaintiff; Mr JS. Cook for defendant.—The case came on last Wednesday, but was adjourned until to-day on account of plaintiff being out of town.— Defendant pleaded not indebted; and, as a further plea, that the action was really one for seduction, and consequently there was no jurisdiction of the Court. Mr Barton said plaintiff was not suing for damages for the seduction of his daughter, but simply to recover monies actually paid by him. He was, therefore, giving defendant an opportunity of compensating for the grievous wrong he had committed in'the seduction of the girl. Defendant had offered to pay Ll7 4s, but plaintiff refused to accept this and decided to withdraw the present action and institute proceedings in a higher Court. Counsel asked that costs be not allowed defendant.—Mr Cook contended that his client should be allowed costs. The case was to a great extent a “try-on,” as was evident from Mr Barton having some time ago stated that plaintiff intended withdrawing the aetion.—His Worship said it was quite clear that the case was one of seduction, and, therefore, by the 27th section of the Resident Magistrate’s Court Act his jurisdiction was ousted, and he had no power to award costs. Barrington v. Scoullar and another.— Claim, L 59 14s, for loss of a box of clothing through defendants’ alleged carelessness.— His Worship delivered judgment in this case, saying that there might have been carelessness in the case, but the plaintiff in no small degree contributed to it herself by allowing her box to be stored without any address on it, and further by allowing so long a time to elapse before taking any steps to recover its possession. His Worship was of opinion that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion that there was gross negligence on the part of the defendants, and held therefore that the plaintiff could not recover. Judgment for defendants, with costs.

Caversham Road Board v. Farrell. —Claim L 6, damage caused by defendant having made a ditch, and thereby injured a highway in the Road Board district. His Worship gave judgment herein as follows : By section 19 of the Resident Magistrate’s Court Act of 1867, it is provided that no Resident Magistrate’s Court shall take cognisance of any claim or demand in which thetitletolandism dispute. Though the claim is made against a private individual it is evident that the actual dispute is between two corporate bodies, both claiming in their corporate capacity the right to make and construct roads in the same district. I am asked to decide whether the Superintendent of the Province has legally exercised his power in creating the municipality of South Dunedin. This I certainly shall not take upon myself to do, but shall assume that everything was rightly done prior to the proclamation of the municipality in the ‘Gazette.’ The question of title has been sufficiently raised, and the jurisdiction of this Court thereby ousted.

Andrew v. Guthrie, Hannah, and others. —Claim, ' L 29 4s 2d, amount of damage to foods shipped in the ketch CatUn, from hmedin to Gatlin’s River.—Mr Joyce appeared for plaintiff 1 ; Mr Harris for defendants.—Judgment was reserved. [Left sitting.]