MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2132, 23 December 1880, Page 3

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CHBISTOHT7ROH. Wednhsdat, Dbobhseb 22. [Before J. Nugent Wood, Esq., E.M.] Cira Cabbs.—Hargreaves v Sharp. In this caae, heard on the lPth inst., the defendant was sued for £6O 17s lid, the valuo of timber said to have been supplied on his guarantee to one Ward. His Worship now gave judgment for plaintiff for £25, leaving Eim the option of sueing for the balanoe in another form. M. Murphy v McPhee, £3l 13s, and McPhee v Murphy, £22 10s 5d (Mr * MoOonnel appearing for Murphy and Mr Holmes for MoPhee), were oross aotions on trade and money accounts between the parties. After hearing evidence, his Worship found that Murphy was indebted to MoPhee in £4 10s 3d, which sum he was ordered to pay with oosts. Elmsley and Co. v Nunwick. TMs was a suit for the recovery of a dog cart or its value £23. Mr Stringer for the plaintiff, Mr Harper for defendant. Plaintiff sold the dog-cart to one Drain on deferred payments, making with him a written agreement that the property in the vehicle should remain with plaintiff until the last instalment was paid. Drain sold the cart to defendant and afterwards absconded. When plaintiff found the cart in possession of defendant he demanded it. Defendant refused to give it up, and the present action was brought. Mr Curlett, one of the firm of Elmsley and Co., stated the above particulars, and produced the agreement. Mr Harper said they knew nothing of the agreement before, and in the face of it there was no use in proceeding further. Judgment for plaintiff for full amount, to be reduced to Is if the cart is given up, with costs. Ferguson v Maling, £23, balance due on a contract for building a bouse. Mr McConnel for plaintiff; Mr J. S. Williams for defendant. The amount claimed had been retained from the gross amount of the payment duo under an article in the contract for thres months, to provide for deficiencies showing in that period. Plaintiff alleged that the work had been done according to contract in a workmanlike manner, and that a certificate to that effect had been given by the architeot. Defendant said it was trne the certificate had been given, but it was given on the express condition that the j concreting of a cellar which had been badly done should be repaired. Plaintiff refUßed to do this, and defendant had gone to considerable expense to set it right. Until he ascertained how much the total cost of it would be he declined to pay any more. After hearing evidence and counsel's addresses, the Magistrate said he was of opinion that plaintiff was bound to be at the expense of the renairs. Until the amount was ascertained he could not sue for the balanoe (if any) due him. Plaintiff nonsuited, and to pay costs Marks v Younjr was adjourned till January sth, and Parnell v Stead till January 261 h.