RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4279, 13 November 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, Novbmbbr 13. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.)

Frances Bligh v. J. H. Ristelli.—Claim, L 7 10s 6d, for board, &c. Mr Lewis appeared for plaintiff, and, the debt being admitted, judgment was given for the amount claimed. George Harris v. James Deuchrass.— Claim, LI 2s 6d. Mr Lewis was for plaintiff, Mr Finn for defendant. This was a remand case, and it appeared that defendant bought a pair of boots from one Holder, for the payment of which he got a receipt, and subsequently obtained another pair, the price of which, it was alleged, was still owing. Mr Harris afterwards bought Holder's book debts, and now sued Deuchrass for the price of the second pair of boots.—Deuchrass, who is master of one of our trading vessels, swore most emphatically he had paid Holder for the articles; but, as he had no receipt to show, and it was stated on oath that he. had not paid, judgment was given for plaintiff for LI 2s 6d. Defendant, who appeared rather excited, inquired if there was no remedy for him, and, on being informed not unless he could get Holder there, went out of Court muttering deep complaints against the way in which he had been served. Meenan and Runciman v. Daniels.—Claim L 29, balance of account. Mr Denniston for plaintiff; Mr Lewis for defendant. There was a deal of evidence taken in this case, which appeared to have arisen out of a dispute as to the value of a cart, part of the stock of one Collie, which had been bought by Daniels. After hearing the particulars, his Worship held that the debt was a fair one, and gave judgment for plaintiff for the L 29.

Daniels v. Collie was in reality a crossaction for goods supplied to the amount of L 5 18s 9d. Mr Lewis was for plaintiff; Mr Denniston for defendant. By«jconsent, judgment was given for plaintiff for L 5 10s 7d, without costs.

Judgment was given by default in the following cases:—Neill and Co. v. James Neagle, L 42 17s 4d, on acoount of a promissory note ;Mr Brent for plaintiff. Gillies, Street, and Hislop v. George Tait, Lls 4s, balance of a promissory note; Mr Cutten for plaintiff. William Wilson v. James Pearce, L 99 14s ; Mr Howorth for plaintiff. D. M. fcpedding v. Joseph Dunn, L2 17a Bd.