DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2196, 10 March 1881, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

Thursday, February 10. [Before Hie Honor Judge WavJ.] MART HAWDON T J. SCOTT. Mr Harper appeared for the plaintiff; no appearance of defendant. The claim was for £2OO, money due on mortgage. Evidence was called to prove the signature of James Scott attached to the mortgage. O. W. Miles, of Miles and 00,, stated that, acting for plaintiff, he had made demand for payment of the money, but it had not been paid. Hie Honor said he would allow the case to stand over for production of the power of attorney. BARQOOD, BON AND EWBN Y B. GEOBQE. Claim, £65 17s 6d, amount of note and interest. Mr Izard applied for an adjournment in this case on behalf of tho defendant, on the ground of the absence of a material witness. Mr Garrick appeared for the plaintiffs, and argued against the adjournment. Mr Izard would guarantee to proceed with the case next month. Mr Garrick said he would agree to the adjournment on that understanding, or he would raise no objection if the money were paid into Court. His Honor pointed out that an affidavit a» to tho absence of a material witness ought to be filed. Mr Izard said he would consult his client. Tho case was allowed to stand over in the meantime till to-morrow. ADJOURNED CASES. W. Coop v Wilson—Mr Holmes said both parties to this case had agreed to an adjournment. Packe Bros, v 0. W. Minchiner—On the application of Mr Harper this case was adjourned for two months. J. SCHWANSKI T J. E. BLWIN. Mr Thomas appeared on behalf of the plaintiff; Mr Izard for the defendant. Tho claim in this case was £SO damages for alleged non-fulfilment of an agreement to let the plaintiff eight acres of laud, &c., at Haltwell. The question in dispute turned upon the ng'earnout made between the plaintiff and Mr Elvrin, a farmer in Southbridge. The Elaintiff alleged that the land was leased to im on certain conditions, which he was prepared to fulfil, but that defendant raised a fanciful objection, and refused to complete the agreement, whereby the plaintiff had sustained a loss of something like £9O. On the other hand, it was contended by defendant that the plaintiff had voluntarily given up his title to the ground, by terms of the agreement, having admitted that he was not prepared to carry out thf|conditions therein enumerated, owing, as ho staled at the time, to a quarrel with his brother -in-law. In support of this view of the case, evidence was given by an independent witness, who had read s letter from defendant to plaintiff, releasing him from his agreement, “ as he was not in a position to carry it out," tho wording of the letter suggesting a corroboration of the evidence as to the interview between the parties at a prior date, when, as stated by Elwin, plaintiff made the admission of being unable to carry out hie portion of tho contract. Tho evidence on both sides occupied considerable time in tho hearing. At its conclusion, Learned counsel addressed the Court. Judgment was given for tho phintiff for £2O and ooiti, [Left sitting.J