MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2220, 7 April 1881, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Wednesday, Apeil 6, [Before J. Nugent Wood, Esq., R.M.] Civil Oases. —Patterson v Levy, £l7; defendant had paid £l3 into Court. Mr Harper appeared for plaintiff, Mr Stringer for defendant. The claim was for balance due for board and residence of defendant, an invalid, and his servant, together £7 per week, at an hotel at Sumner, and for some wine, &e, supplied to him. The matter in dispute was whether plaintiff was entitled to charge a week’s board when defendant had only been in the house five days in that week. His Worship, after hearing evidence, decided that there had been an agreement by which the charge was justified. “Three Star” brandy, which had been charged at 10s per bottle, was, on the evidence of J. O. Sheppard as to value, reduced to 8s 6d, and a charge for champagne was abandoned, the judgment was for the plaintiff for £3 6s Gd, together with the amount paid into Court and costs. Hubbard v Dickinson, £2l. Mr Stringer for plaintiff. Plaintiff, a butcher at Christchurch, was commissioned by defendant, a baconcurer at Temuka, to purchase and forward him a draft of pigs, which was done. On their arrival at Temuka they were viewed by defendant, who refused to take delivery of them. They were then sold by auction by order of plaintiff, and the difference of what they fetched and what they originally cost, plus expenses and 2J per cent, commission, constituted the present claim. Plaintiff and four other witnesses deposed to the excellence of the pigs. They were quiet, and of a kind that would easily fatten, and ' they were cheap. Evidence of an auctioneer

and a purchaser, taken at Temuka, was read I over, by which, together with defendant’s | oral testimony, it appeared that the pigs were of a very bad class. Defendant said he called them “ Captain Cook’s.” They were wild ; had been imported from "Wanganui; and he would not have them as a gift. His instructions to plaintiff named a very different class of animal. He would not have sent such pigs to his worst enemy, if that enemy was a bacon curer. His Worship said he thought the evidence, though very contradictory, showed that the pigs were not what had been stipulated for; ho knew what wild pigs were, having had a losing experience in that line himself. Judgment for defendant, without costs. Parry v Hoberts, £ll. Mr Perceval for plaintiff, Mr Gresson for defendant._ This was a claim for the painting and glazing of some lamps and the supply and [ filing of some lead piping in the cellar of the Junction Hotel, at Bangiora, The work had been done about the time the hotel had been sold by J. O. Sheppard to defendant, and a misunderstanding as to which of the two should pay for it was the cause of the present action. The Magistrate, after taking evidence, ordered defendant to pay for the piping ; the lamps were not allowed. Judgment for I plaintiff for £5 2s, expenses of one witness 7s 6J, and solicitor’s fee £1 Is. Milsom v Ferguson ; claim £2O. Mr Loughrey, for plaintiff; Mr Stringer, for defendant. According to plaintiff, on March sth at 8 p.m., a boy in his employment named Mills was riding a horse and leading throe others in Tomb’s lane, when he was brought up by some loads of gravel which had been left in heaps in the centre of the road, over which his horse fell, cutting his knees and his nose. The horse was damaged to extent of the amount claimed. Mills having deposed to the accident, Mr Loughrey proceeded to prove that defendant was a contractor under the Avon Bond Board for the supply and spreading of metal in Tomb’s road. He called W. S'. Beatson, surveyor to the Avon Boad Board, who produced a document which was said to be a contract between the Board and defendant. On examination of it, Mr Stringer objected to its reception as evidence, as it was unstamped, the specification attached to it was unsigned, and it did not bear the seal of the Board. He said any one of these items of neglect prevented its validity. Mr Loughrey said, if he had received the information he required from the Boad Board office, his proceeding would have been different; as it stood, he was obliged to admit that the objections made were fatal. Mr Ferguson was not legally the contractor or liable. Judgment, plaintiff nonsuited with costs, solicitor’s fee, and expenses of two witnesses. Turnbull v Hutchinson, £l7 19s 6d; defendant had paid £3 7s into Court. Mr Gresson appeared for defendant. There being no appearance of plaintiff, judgment was given for plaintiff for the amount paid into Court, plaintiff to pay costs and solicitor’s fee. In Judge v Hart, adjudicated on on Tuesday, the application for immediate execution was granted, plaintiff deposing to his belief that defendant intended to leave the colony. Toung v Marks, adjourned from March 30th, was further adjourned till April 13th