RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4222, 7 September 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, 7. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., E.M.) i Judgment wcnt'for plaintifb by default in the fbUowing cases : W. M'Lareh v, Joseph Dunn (Port Chalmers), claim L 5 ,14s, for clothes supplied; W.: Hutton v. W. Roberts, 15s, on a dishonored IOU; Linklater v. Samuel Hawkins, L 6 15s, for board and lodging; Brown, Ewing, and Co. v. Frederick Keasley, L 6 10s, for clothes supplied. Stevens v. H. Tattersfield.—Claim L2, on an unpaid lOU. Mr E. Cook appeared for defendant.—Plaintiff said he lent defendant L2 in an hotel at Cromwell four years ago. —Cross-examined : Witness. was at that time a bank clerk, and defendant was board* ing at an hotel witness used to frequent. Witness did not know defendant’s name then, but the lOU (produced) was signed “ H.T.,” and the money was to be repaid on the following Saturday. He believed a hawker was present, raffling pipes and,other articles, and that defendant was dealing with the hawker and therefore borrowed the money.—To his Worship ; Instead of paying hack the loan, defendant bolted £r6m"his lodgings. Wifcufesa never saw him since till meeting him on the Rattray street jetty a few days ago. He asked defendant to pay the lOU, and the latter admitted owing the amount, but afterwards declined to pay it, saying the 1.0. U. was no good, as it was written in pencil and bore only his initials.—Defendant, on being put into the box, denied all knowledge of the transaction ; be remembered meeting plaintiff at Cromwell, bnt never borrowed 'money from him: The I.O;U. was not in witness’s handwriting, though it bore hie initials.—His Worship requested defendant to write his name on a sheet of paper, and after comparing .this with the initials on the 1.0. U., gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount daubed, with costs. T Murray v. Findlay.—Claim, L 27 ss, balance of account du*» for chaff supplied. His Worship gave judgment in this cttse for plaintiff for LlB, inclusive of the amount jiaid into Court, together with costs, thinking this an equitable conclusion to arrive at under the circumstances. Kirby v. Kirk.—ln this case bis Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount paid into Court. r Archibald v. M‘Kay.—ln this application for a new trial, his Worship said he had, after careful consideration, come to the* conclusion that the motion must be refused, without costs. White y. Downham.—Claim L2O, damages sustained by plaintiff through defendant’s unlawfully assaulting and beating him. Mr M'Keay appeared for plaintiff; Mr A. Bathgate for defendant.—From the evidence of plaintiff it appeared that the parties to the action were fellow workmen in the Walter of Leith flour mill, and some days ago hot words between them. Defendant knocked wiraress about injuring his head and back considerably, and-swearing that he “ would finish him.”—Dr Fergusson gave evidence as to treating plaintiff for his injuries, saying he came to him in, a Very weak state from loss of blood.;— The evidence for the defence tended to throw the Klnmo of the quarrel on plaintiff, and it was Sought to establish that his weakness was more the effect of drink than the result of defendant's assault.—His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for L2, with L 4 7s costs.