RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Grey River Argus, Issue 60, 31 May 1866, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

' GREYMOUTH, ' Tuesday, May ?9. (Before W. H. Reveil, Esq., R.M.) There was no police business before the Court this morning. .CIVIL CASES.. Mary ' Buggy y. Margaret Scanian.— Claim of £2 7s, the price of a carpet and jug left in the possession of the defendant, and afterwards appropriated by her. The defendant paid Ll 9s into Court, . but judgment was givenfor the fall amount claimed and costs, , Morris Levy v. Edward M'Guirk.— :.Claim of LlO, as two, weeks ground rent. j/The plaintiffs case was that bis late partner (Isaacs), find- the defendant's predecessor in an hotel in Richmond Quay. (M'Conway), agreed t» purchase conjointly the section uuon which their premises stood, and after.wards to equally divide the same. This was done at the last land sale. The plaintiff bought out Isaacs, and the defendant bought out M'Conway, thus becoming the parbies to ifche former agreement. In order to adjust the land boundaries, the plaintiff offered to have it surveyed, or the whole question referred to arbitration^ but the defendant would listen to no argument .and tb,e plaintiff called in the services of a surveyor, when it,M r as found thai the defendant's hotel encroached on the plaintiff's ground five inches in front, and five or six feet in the rear. The defendant still refused to remove his buildings, and when the plaintiff's- workmen commenced, operations, they were stopped by the defendant, who claimed the 'ground.' In order to settle the matter, the plaintiff gaye the defendant notice that unless lie remove*.} hjs buildings he would be charged ground rent at the.rate of £5, and this action was brought to recover two weeks' rent at that rate. The defendant's case was that he bought the premises he now occupied, and the ground on which it stood, from M'Conway for".£180. A few days afterwards, the 'plaintiff came \o him and disputed the' possession of a jjorfcioiv of the ground he had just purchased. He told plaintiff that if M'Conway gave him the wrong ground, or not sufficient ground, that was no business of his. He afterwards saw M'Conway about it, who told him So keep the ground, as it waa perfectly correct, and if Levy disputed it, he could tind him at any time. The Magistrate said that, from the documents which had been produced, it appoared that M'Conway had sold to the defendant a part' cf the plaintiff's laud, to which he had no right or title. He must give judgr ment for the plaintiff, but the defendant had his remedy against M'Conwiiy. Scoglund jyid Eurcell v. John Buggy.— Claim of Ll 10s, the balance of an account. Judgment by default, with costs. Same v. Jacob Peters.— Claim of L 2 Is 6d. Judgment, by consent, for the aniounj; claimed, and costs. "' • George Simmons v. Mrs O'Day. — Claim pf Ll2 19s. Judgment by consent; L6to be paid at once, and the balance in a fortnight. Same v. James Johnston. — Claim of L9 los for labor done, and sundry materials supplied. The defendant paid into Court" L 6 (ss, ami admitted that all the work charged for was done", but disputed each item as being over? charged. Afl* the items in a rather lpng account were gone over very minutely, and some very amusing cross-firing as" to the value of the work done took Warabetween , were charged at a rate, and the Magistrate gave judgment for the amount claimed, and costs. . ■ Same v. William Evanp. — Claim of L 3 Is Isd for goods sold and delivered. Jndg,uient by default; with cpsts. ( - Smith and M'Dowell v. J. S. Thompson and Co.— Claim of L.13, on. .the order of i Edward Robello, who, at the time it was granted, was the servant of the defendants. The plaintiff (M'Dowell) stated his case as follows : — On the 14th instant, I received a. note from Mr Robello, enclosing au order, for Ll3 on J. S. Thompson and Co., but asking me not to present it until the following Friday. On Monday evening, I received a cheque from J. S. Thompson on his owji rig* count, which, on being" sent to the Bank was returned marked "n. s. f." In consequence of this I took the order and the cheque to the defendant's store next morning. He said ho, would pay both, but his own' cheque first— probably that evening or the next morning — and he asked me to be kiud enough to hold over the order until Mqnday morning and he would pay it all or part of it. - He called next day and paid his own cheque, and 1 waited until Monday morning for payment of the order, but I did not see him when I called at his office. During the same day I met him in the street, when he said, " Robello is gone now, and I suppqse you had better summon me." He refused to pay it then, and if he had not promised to pay it previously I should have received the •amount from Robello. The defendant Thompson stated : The day M'Dowell called with the order Robello- had £18 to draw from xis. I told M'Dowell that the order was right, and that Evening Robello went to Hokitika, where he saw my partner, Mr Garven, and drew from him the balance of his salary. ... When UGarven returned he told me this, and when M'Dowell again called I told him that Robello had drawn his salary. I believe that Rolello was in town that day, and left the same evening. My partner knew nothing about the order when he paid Robello's salary. The Magistrate ■ said he must give judgment for the plaintiffs with costs, because it appeared that Thompson accepted the order when it was presented to him, by promising to pay it, and when h,e knew that this account was outstanding he ought to have informed the partner of it. Andrew Fargie v. Watts and Co.-^-Claim of £17 12s for work and labor done. The defendant's admitted the whole of the plaintiffs account, but pleaded a set-off for goods supplied, which left a balance in the plaintiff's favor of £5 143 9d. The evidence which was taken concerning the set-off, showed that the goods were supplied to the plaintiff and his late -partners.' Those supplied^to the plaintiff were admitted by him, but he disputed his liability for those supplied to his late partners, and after a .careful investigation of the accounts, it appearecl^thatthege men had ceased to be the plaintiff's partners when the goods were supplied. The Magistrate deducted these amounts from the account, telling the defendants to sue the men individually, and gave judgment for the plaintiff, £11. 6s 3di and costs./ ■ Captain Thacker, master and owner of the ketch Maid of the Mill v. the Master and owners of the schooner Eliza Simpson.— Claim of £20 for damages sustained- by a collision in. this Port. Mr D. 'Girdwood ap.peared as agent* for the master of the Eliza Simpson, and pleaded hot indebted. The plaintiff stated his case thus : On the 6th Feb. last the Eliza Simpson and my 'Vessel were both lying in this river hard on the shingle bank. The' steam-tug Lioness was hauling the Eliza Simpson off y and she fell off arid came in collision with the Maid of the Mill, damging her to the amount of the present claim. If the warps of the Eliza Simpson had been in their proper place she would have gone clear of my. vessel.. When the accident occurred I was below, and; on coming on deck I found the rail cut away and other damage done. M.r Girdwood and other gentlemen were standing there then, and I said, "who is to see me right for these repairs?" , As i Mr Girdwood said, " I suppose I am," I allowed the Eliza Simpson to go to sea with<^«uM'*kiug any f^rthfe»«d^s^-JllcGirdwood

promised- t;q see me about the repairs that afternoon, but. he .did not come, and on the following.day-.he said; he would see about ii by-and-ipye; 'iOn the evening of the siune day I sajv Mm again, when he said I might., do what I pleased about it. I told Mm. I Ayould hiare the damages surveyed and re» paired, which I did, . and I now product the survey, and the accounts for the repaira. Some are still to be effected. The defend.an#s .representative^ Mr v Girdwaod, sajd-^-I was present on deck when this accident occurred, and when Captain ThaGk«r .asked who is to pay, I said I would look in,to it. When I enquired as to the matter I foontl '^ that Jhetowrropo w c as,on board .jbhe Ljpnes^"" and the cause of the collision was thatiihe Captain of the Lioness did not wait till^thc' Eliza Simpson was ready, but got «p steam xuid toweel her head round to the current. The result was that she feil.off down the .stream and came in contact with' the Maid of the Mill. In the evening I informed the plaintiff that according to the Shipping Act tb.cyes.sel w.as in "charge pf the Ljonesg, and as it was no fault of the Eliza Simpson,, she could not be held responsible.. Robert; Henderson, a mariner, who.saw iheicollision, said tha warps of the Eliza Simpson were properly fastened at the time; but he could not .say how she fell off down stream-; perhaps the rope slipped. He thought, the damage was overestimated. The.-Magis-trate said it appeared from the evidence that the owners or Captain of the Eliza Simpson yore responsible for the damage done., The . Captain had ejnployed the Lioness to tow his vessel out of port, and it was his duty to see that this was done without damaging the other vessels lying near him. There did not .appear tp have been any negligence on the • part of the plaintiff, and he, therefore, gave judgment for the plaintiff, £20 and costs. Judgments by default were given jn the following cases — M'Farland and Joyce r : . Geo. Green, £18 10a 5 Alex. Miller v.Jas. Lambton, £4; M'Farland and Jpycg y.. JohnßaTron,£3 7s lOd; John J, Revell, agent ior native trust, v. John Ellis, £16 10s ; same v. same, £1« 10s ; H.Coleman v. sdm Black, £2 10s. Cases dismissed for non.-appearan.ee : "■ — De Cos.a anil Co, v. Wm. Sturdon, Edwd. Pritchard v, Jas. LambtoH, Peter Miller V. z?.is. Lambton, Robert Bell y.. Antonio 'Heat'- . derson, Rae and Haworth v. Abrahams, Cole and Co. v. E. Gallagher, Cassius.and Comiskeyy. James Lanibtpn, Edwin Ashton v. John Byan, G. L, TJirockinortbn tv, G. Harris, 3ame v. H. Marks.