MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2077, 20 October 1880, Page 3

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

OHBISTOHURCH.

Tuesday, October 19. TBefore G. L. Mellish, Esq., B.M.] Oivm Casks. —Terry v Rogers, £7, the value of certain tools detained, and for damages sustained by their detention. Mr Izard for plaintiff, Mr Stringer for defendant. The parties are carpenters, and it was alleged that defendant borrowed tools from plaintiff and refused to give them up or pay their value. Defendant produced evidence to show that the tools had been given to him by plaintiff in satisfaction of a debt, and the latter was nonsuited with costs. City Council v Moore, 13s for soavengaring charges for las* March and June quarters. Defendant said that his wife had paid one quarter's charge, believing it to be for the period ending last March. It turned out, however, that it was for the previous quarter, during whioh time there had been no pans on the premises, so that he had aotually paid for work whioh had not been done. The magistrate said that most probably, if he could satisfy the Counoil of the truth of his statement, they would refund what had been overpaid, if they did not it would be singularly unjust, but the services, whioh formed the ground of the present claim, were not disputed, and they must be paid for. Defendant said he would have no difficulty in showing that the work had not been done. Judgment for plaintiffs with costs. City Counoil v Pope, 13s, for similar services. Defendant disputed his liability as being only a weekly tenant; judgment for plaintiffs with costs. City Council v White, 13s, scavengering charges. Defendant is a landlord, his tenant has left the house for which the services was done, and the Council now sued him for the arrears. Defendant said he thought it very hard to be pursued in the present manner for the payment of other people's debts. The work had not benefitted him in any way, and |it could not be sought to be exacted from him as one of the responsibilities of a property owner in the same way as rates were. He did not believe the City Council hod the right or power to do it, and he would, _if possible, appeal against any decision which ordered him to pay this or any similar claim. Mr Mellish said he would give every facility for setting at reßt this question, which ought to be have been settled long before. The agent for the Council said the amount was too small to entitle defendant to an appeal. Mr Mellish thought the Counoil ought not to throw any obstacles in the way if the matter could be arranged. Mr Garriok eaid he had not been instructed in this case, but speaking as amicus curiae, he was under the impression that, even if the Counoil did consent, his Worship had no power to send the case to a higher Court. Mr Mellish said that point might be raised, but if defendant wished to take the course he had indicated he would find no hindrances put in his way by that Court. He wished to know why the tenant bad not been sued. Defendant said he had told the collector where the tenant now was, and he had refused, or at any rate neglected, to follow her. The Collector said the tenant was a poor widow in very straitened circumstances. Mr Mellish—"That is no reason why you should seek to impose her liabilities on other people. It might have formed matter for your consideration whether or not, in her circumstances, you would remit a part of her debt, but I cannot see why you should paes her over and come down on the landlord in this arbitrary way. It appears that the house was unoccupied part of the last term. I shall give judgment againßt defendant for the amount due for that quarter, leaving the Counoil to sue the tenant for the other, once more expressing my dissatisfaction at the state of the law." Judgment for plaintiff for 63 6d with costs. City Council v Havenhill, 63 6d on acoount of the same charges. Judgment for plaintiffs with costs. Goodwin v Parkinson. Mr Garriok for plaintiff. Mr Kalder for defendant. This was an action to recover £32 5s for half cost of erecting a dividing fence between the properties of the parties at Kaituna, and £l3, half cost of maintaining the tame since the 25th September, 1875. Plaintiff put in an agreement bearing the above date, authorising a claim of this kind by plaintiff for a dividing fence. Defendant alleged that the agreement referred to a very Bmall portion of the fence claimed for, the greater part oi which had been erected before the agreement was made. The caße occupied nearly the whole day. Voluminous evidence on both sides was brought forward, and long arguments on points of law were gone into, the chief contention for the plaintiff being that the agreement expressed a covenant made and settled before its signature, and that it covered proceedings that had taken place before that event. His Worship thought, after hearing the evidence and arguments, that the claim could scarcely be sustained; but, as there was considerable conflict in the evidence, he offered Mr Garriok the option of a non suit or the alternative of a judgment for the defendant. Mr Garrick asked till the following day to consider it. Mr Nalder, on the understanding that costs were to be for his client in any case, consented, and judgment was deferred till next (this) day. Judgment went by default in City Counoil v Ashton 9s, v Gros 13s, v Hillyear 133 ; Howe and Co. v I Williamson, £2 3a ; same v Brunsdon, £1 4s 2d ; same v Hyndman, £6 9s lid ; Belton v Crocker, £5 ; and Hill v Cochrane, £2 2s.