RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4216, 31 August 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Judgmetit was given -fot .plaintiffii,: by de~ Eault, in;3ihe fbUowmg^passs: -Burns v.' G. P. Rowleft, claim Lll Os $, for professional iktfeahdilpej, Wflson; and Jopft*v; 0. H. STylde, E* 15s, for,. Thomas Reid, L 3 Ms • same v. Andrew Collins, Lll 17s; Sutherland v, McLean, L 4 ss, for groceries supplied ; Mills, Dick, and Co. v. D. H. Carey, L 3 15s, for printing and advertising. W. M'Kellar v. J. H. Moeller.—Claim L 5, for-rent. ' Mr A. Bathgate appear&lSbr plaintiff.—Defendant said he had a set off* but as this had not been.put in judgment was given for plaintiff for the amount claimed, witb/costs. ■->.•.«•..„.-,.. , -^ Reid v. Douglas.--Plaintiff in February last brought two actions against defendant in: connection with & company. In- the first case his Worship had: given judgment.^for

plaintiff, and defendant appealed Supreme Court; in the second easehia Worship? bad reseryecTjudgment; IdVG. Cook now rose And said he was jprepared a nonsuit in each case.—His the point was a new one, and he woulcfconv Bider it. In the meantime the matter woutt be left in hoc statu till oounsel received ps decision. . , „ ■ Godfrey and Green r v. M'JPherson.—<3aim, L 6 10s. Defendant. admitted, owing the amount, and judgment was given for. plaintiffs, with coats. "."17^. B. Pritchard.y, A. M'Donald.—Aa action to recover LIOO on an account Worship gave in this ease,, saying that an account stated being not conclusive between the parties, the debts respecting which it was stated-may b'a : examined.. "su% the amount of the account on the one We being L 359 and on the other L 253, the question arises—has the Court power to investiS ate Accounts, the amounts of which lire oth m excess of the limits of the jurisdie. taon ? He was clearly of- opinion ,that this Court had no jurisdiction in 1 the present actum. His Worship said Tie had come'to that conclusion on the assumption thatftheretfas a formal acknbWledgment in this case, but of that he was sjf no means satisfied. Board v.- J; Hi Reid (W*S. L2 6s, for two years' mt. *T- -A s*? Appeared for defendant, %ho pleaded that the rates bad already DeonpaM by other parties. Worship fidjournia enable, jiefeadant td tamg evidence to that effect. ■'■'• •*#'* • ; Mfajray v. — Claim, M money alleged to have been lent. Inlihis case, his Worship gave' judgment as follows: this case, owing to its peeuliaritr#l have given more than Usual *onßideratioS*to the various points involved, aridhavecome to that theinost I can adopt is to nonsuit the plaintiff. WJaje there is such .'a* mass of evidence m-oppdsition to his view I cannot find 1 inlua favor; yet there are presuhiptionsandcirdffistauces which justify me mfeaving/the matfjer open—either for the discoveryof fresh 7 evidence or for trial before a jury, which fcttier course will be open to plaintiff if he be ad »dvißed. That the plaintiff's casei / InMo event of its going before a jury, may notice prejudiced by *ny review the cißclnfc stances, at present I abstain fromm&king any further remarks.—Mr Denniston Y£o you give us a nonsuit si a favor t We take it as'a matter of right:—His Worship : «BfoL Ido not. I have stated my, reasons.--Mr Denniston: I was supposing you were taking a new. view of the law—that's all,-His Worship: I. don't want any remarks on t£o matter. Don't stretch my words t» mora than they mean, There is the make the best Hub you can of it.—Mr Denniston continued to mutter for a few jßurotes something about "taking a nonßuit as a matter of riorhi;."' " ?. ■■■^

Webb y." Bltchie,—His Worship. »ve judgment in thia case, which was an actioi* a* the instance of one Webb, a substituted trustee under * post-nuptial settlement between Hunter and his wife, whereby Hunter tested in trustees certain property deviwjd to her absolutely by the will of her fo*m%r husband Langley. Plaintiff aoughtf ?4© recover a debt of L 35 Is 6d dua by/&**&>■ fendant for board and lodging at the (%&- rion Hotel, Tokomairiro, occupied T>y Mr and Mrs Hunter. ~N6 part iof the debt m* incurred prior to the decease olLangley, andit could. n4t part.'rf>f accounrsued for is sot teferredrto iiREe deed—the in the : assigning, olause, but as meaning must be held tobe book'delils part of'LangleVs estate bequeathed toi Mrs Hunter, •ndnotardebt belonging to Hunter at the date of the execution of the Hat-nuptial settlement. Under the circumstances his Worship•. was ?of opinion that Hunter has still an interest ia the debt sued fo>, and he ought to have been a party to the present action. There ought to. have been no difficulty in , obtaining Hunter's concurrence a discharge of the debt on its payment by defendant, who was always willing to pay for it, and if there was a difficulty the defendant ifcfjjot re. sponsible for it. 'Plaintiff would be non. suited.