MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2116, 4 December 1880, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

OH E I STOHIJEOH. Thwbsdat, December 2. ["Before J. Ollivier and B. Wostenra, Esqs., J.P.’s.] Cira Oases. —Gatlin v Daly, £ls. Mr Stringer for plaintiff. Mr Holmes for defendant. Plaintiff, a dentist, had drawn a * large number of teeth for defendant and his wife,' and had supplied each of them with artificial teeth in sufficient number to make up complete new seta. The jobs together came to £35, of which £2O had been paid. Defendant refused to pay the balance for which the present action was brought. Defendant pleaded that a bargain had been made between the parties, by which plaintiff, for a certain sum, undertook to supply his wife with teeth in lieu of those drawn, which would completely satisfy all masticatory requirements, and also leave their articulation perfect. The operations on Mrs Daly had been a success, but the teeth made for defendant were a misfit, entirely useless. He had never succeeded in keeping them in his mouth only for very short periods at intervals, they were extremely difficult to adjust; he could hardly get them into his mouth even after springs had been fitted to them, and when in their place he suffered excruciating pain. On one occasion he had to take them out while in church. The apparatus was exhibited in Court. Defendant was willing to pay the balance of plaintiff’s demand less a charge for extracting the stumps, if a workable set of teeth was supplied, os agreed upon. Mr Seymour deposed that, in bis opinion, the teeth in their present state could not be used, and it would cost £l7 to put them into working order. Mrs Daly stated that the teeth made for her by plaintiff fitted her exactly. The bargain with him was made on the conditions stated by her husband, Mr Stringer said plaintiff had already altered the teeth once, and was quite willing to make them fit properly if opportunity was given. The Bench thought, under the circumstances, plaintiff must be nonsuited. Mr Stringer pointed out that a payment having been made on account, that course could not be taken. Judgment was then given for defendant, each party to pay their own costs. McCracken v Tutton, claim £B. Mr Beeves appeared for defendant. This was an action for damages sustained as alleged by a breach of warrantry. A horse swap took place between the parties. The mare coming from defendant was understood to be in foal, but the supposition turned out to be wrong, and the amount abovenamed was claimed as compensation. The evidence showed that no guarantee of the mare being in foal had been given, and judgment was for defendant, with costs. Sellars v Bradshaw and Isherwood, £l. This was a claim for goods supplied. Judgment for plaintiff for 7s. Judgments went for plaintiffs by default, with costs, in Hopkins and Go. v Isherwood, £1 15s 2d; Smith and Go. v Heath, 9s; Tiaoh v Thiele, £6 lls; Peacock v Patman, £2 Is 6d; Grown Brewery v Western, 13s 6d ; same v Bennett, 15s ; and Prins and Ellis v Allen, £9 19s 6d. Judgment was for defendant in Lundy v McCormick, lie.