RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4208, 22 August 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, Auotjst 22. (Before J. Bathgate; Esq., R.M.) Judgment was given for plaintiffs by default in the following cases:—Meenah V. Robinson, claim Ll9 7s Id, for goods supplied ; Moloney v. Lawrence, L 7 3s 7d, for goods supp-ied. F. It. Evans v. George DarreU.—Claim LlO, damages for breach of agreement. Mr Lewis appeared for plaintiff; MrAldridge for defendant.—Plaintiff, who' is a commission agent and boarding-house keeper, said he had agreed with defendant by telegram •to reserve for himself, wife, and maid a suite of apartments.—Mr Aldridge objected to defendant's telegrams being produced in evidence until it had been proved that he had sent them—defendant's name did not appear on the telegrams, but merely a copy of his name.—Mr Lewia then called George Frederic Bryce DarrelL actor and author, who admitted sending telegrams similar to those produced.—The plaintiff then continued his evidence, saying that he met the Darrell's on their arrival at Dunedih, and told him everything was prepared according to instructions. Ko charge had been agreed upon between witness and defendant, but witness's usual charge was nine guineas a week for that suite of apartments and board. Defendant after going to the house called at the witness's office and said tho place would not do as there was not sufficient room for his enormous quantity of luggage. He had three tons of luggage, and wanted his boxes placed where he could always get at them easiljt Defendant offered witness a pound note To repay him for any trouble he had been put to. Witness had been put to great trouble in arranging the rooms properly for defendants reception, and had gone to expense in buying a double washstand, a chest of drawers, ana other articles of furniture. Between the dates of making and breaking the agreement witness could have let the apartments to. a lady and gentleman who arrived by the steamer. Witness did not see these people, but Mrs Evans did.-His Worship said nothing could be taken as evidence from witness except what he himself knew of .his own knowledge.—Witness thought LlO was a very reasonable charge for the trouble he had been put to. He had plenty of room for defendant's luggage. Cross-examined; Witness paid L 7 10s for the articles he purchased, /he maid's room was prepared by putting a green baize screen up the.centre of a room, using half for the maid's room and half for the luggage. In consequence Mr Darrell would have to go through the maid's room at all times when he wished to get anything from his wardrobe. Witness did not know that this was the reason for defendant's objecting to this arrangement. Witness had other boarders staying with him, but he did not charge them three guineas a-week. The Darrells required extra attendance. They did not take possession of the apartments, nor even remove their boxes off the dray. About three feet was taken off the maid's room to put the luggage in.—His Worship thought it was useless prolonging the cross-examination. The case turned upon a point of law—namely, that it was an executory contract, and. the agreement must be shown in writing. This was fatal, especially when combined with the fact that on Mr Darrell's seeing that the aocommodation would not suit he at once ob. jected. If he had seen and approved of the apartments before telegraphing that he would take them it would nave been a different thing. Plaintiff would be nonsuited, without costs ; and it would be left to defendant to make of his own accord some small compensation to plaintiff for the trouble he had been put to.