RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4129, 22 May 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Monday, May 22. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.)

Stamper v. Rogers.—Claim Ll9 15s 2d, amount of a previous judgment and law expenses, With interest thereon. His Worship crave judgment in this case for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs ; the Clerk to the Court to see that no use is made of the previous judgment. judgment went for plaintiffs by default in the following cages i—Oliver and Ulph v. Pickertou (in gaol), claim L 24 3s, for dishonored acceptance; same v. J. Sellars, Ll 6s 6d, for goods, supplied s Rossbotham aud Co. W J. Smith (Akaroa), L 9 6s, fc? a corncrusher, &c. ; Same v. Hector Norman fiimson (Switzers), L 22 5s 6d ; for chaff-cutter, circular saw, &c.; Same v, F. Roberts (Clinton), Ll 2s, balance of account due for goods supplied ; Findlay and Co., L2O 19s 7d, balance due on dishonored bill; v. White and Crawford, Ll6 op2d, balance due on dishonored bill.

Robert Smith v. James Baxter and William Barr (as trustees in the estate of the late John Barr). —Claim, LBO IGs, for services rendered, commission on the sale of an hotel at Balolutha, travelling expenses, &c. Mr Howorth appeared for plaintiff; Mr Stout for defendants, who pleaded the Statute of Limitation as to part of the claim and also not indebted. —Plaintiff stated that in the year ISOS he sold the Milton ■ otel for the late John Barr for L4OO, the commission on which transaction, amounting to L‘2o, was still due. Witness also gave evidence of other services ho had rendered deceased, including valuation of the Crown Hotel, Balclutha. When he sent in his account, in 1871, deceased disputed the whole of it, though before then the latter had agreed to hand witness over two sections of laud in payment. Later on deceased these suctions, and Witness was not paidhis claim in any way. Cross-examined : V\ itaess not sus John Bate foe the account

or the land, aa he thought deceased would transfer the sections to him at some time or another. Witness’s wife persuaded him not to sUe SaTr while the latter was in illhealth. Witness got nothing from 'the sale of the Crown Hotel except a hogshead of sour ale. If deceased’s books showed ail account against witness for horsehire, bottles of brandy, drinks, &o.» since 1868, the entries mnst be false—he never had a ha’p’orth of them. Re-examined: Witness once owed deceased a bill of about LIOO for drinks, but he had paid that and run no account since.—Dr. Smith, of Balolutha, said he attended deceased previous to his death in 1875. Witness was with deceased when he instructed plaintiff to value the Crown Hotel. Cross-examined : Deceased was not a man who was likely to allow such an account as this to stand oyer for years ; and plaintiff was not in a position to wait for the money so long if it was owing. Deceased had often done acts of kindnes towards plaintiff, and assisted him and his family.—After further evidence had been given, judgment was given for plaintiff for Lls, with costs.