BESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, AHAURA.

Grey River Argus, Volume IX, Issue 629, 29 January 1870, Page 3

BESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, AHAURA.

Friday, January 21. W (Before J. H. Lowe, Esq., R.M.) * Louis Montagnet v. Denis M'Kenna. — An action to recover L 6, plaintiff's share of the value of a horse which was raffled at Napoleon. Plaintiff and a person named Jules Guerin purchased a LI ticket for a chance in the raffle. Their ticket won the horse, the value of which was settled at Ll2. Defendant said he bought the horse for Ll2 from Jules, which sum he placed to Jules' credit as against an account of L2l, which Jules owed him (defendant.) He did not recognise plaintiff at all in the transaction. His Worship held this view of the matter, and nonsuited the plaintiff, with 5s costs. John Torrens v. James Eaton and Wm. Marshall. — Claim for the amount of an 1 O 17, i£lo 11s 9d. Judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with 39s costs.! S. Samuels v. G. H. Smith— A claim for Ll3 Is for horse hire. Judgment for amount claimed with costs 19s. Execution not to issue until the result of a cross-action, which would be tried next court day, was determined. Kittelty v. Drury.— Claim for L 6 4& for horse hire. Defendant did not dispu c the debt, but said he had not been presented with an account until he received the summons. Judgment for amount. Thomas Tracy y. Burke. — A claim for L 3 8s 4d, for goods. Judgment for plaintiff forjamount, with Is costs. Louis Davis v. Webb. — Claim f< r the amount, of a promissory note for L 5 ss. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount claimed, with 32s costs. , J. D. Pinkerton v. J. Pugb.HA claim for L 4 48 for board and residence atid cash lent. Defendant admitted the debt, and asked for time. Judgment for amount claimed, with ?53 costs, to be paid in th^ee W6GK.B* + ' . . ■ *■'.'■' James Johnson v. John Liddy.r-Ver-dict by consent for 14 14s 6d, with 9s coste, to be' paid, in a fortnight, or three weeks' imprisonment. Cpoke and Owens v. Maher and Luxori for 'Till- 9s 6d, goods sold at Sullivan's Gully. Defendants paid L 2 13s 9d into courtu^-rThis was a case of disputed accounts. Plaintiffs books did not tally with the bills and receipts produced by defendants. John F. Healy, . a. profess sional accountant, said he made out the balance-sheet produced from the accounts rendered by plaintiffs to defendants. After correcting several inaccuracies, and striking out certain items which had been charged twice, he thought defendants indebted to' plaintiffs L 2 13s 9d, which amount, by his advice, they paid -into Court. 'His Worship, in giving, judgment^ said he was satiisfied that if any error had occurred it must have been through inadvertence, and not through intention. He helfl that part i of the'goods supplied, such as wearing apparel, must be charged pri(For continuation of news see Fourth Page.)

vately, and not to the general account. After a careful consideration of the case, he would give judgment for the plaiutiffs for L 3 7s 7d, being IBs lOd more than the amount paid into court. Louis Davis v. Louis Mahult. — Claim for the amount of a promisaory note for L 2. J udgment for plaintiff with 9s coßts. Stratfora y. Camelette.— An action to recover L 5 due, plaintiff^ by one George Vezie, whioh, it was alleged, defendant had promised to pay as an agent of Vezie. The plaintiff stated that he lent L 5 to Vezie, who shortly afterwafda went to the' Buller. 1 ; Received a letter from Ve?ie stating that Stephen Camelette, his mate, would call and pay me..theLs, When I spoke to Camelette he told me that Vizie had written to him for the L 5, and another LlO besides. He said he had been to the Store, and had a conversation with H.. Hayden about the money. Defendant distinctly gave me to understand that he got the money from George Veaiie to pay me : with. The money is still owing. H. Hayden said that some time since he resided at Napoleon. He remembered defendant coming to plaintiff 's store, and asking witness if he knew anything about an account between George the Greek and Felix Stratford. Searched the books but could find no entry. Camelette theu said there was an account between George the Greek and Felix, and ißaid he was prepared to settle it, Told him he had better wait ancl see Mr Stratford. He did hot offer the money. Defendant said he never received any money from Vejde to p^ay on his account. He 'might ' have said to plaintiff; that as an old mate of Veziea he would pay the money for him, provided he was BhownVezie's letter, requesting him to ; do so. ' He had letters from Vezie, but nothing , was mentioned; about, this L 5. His Worship, in giving judgment, aaid this ;was an important case, the law. of . which he had carefully studied. It was necessary in equity that proof should have-. been given of the fact that .defendant had received the money for payment to ■ plaintiff ; this had not been done. With reference to the contradictory -nature : 6f ! the evidence, he was not disposed to think there was intentional falsity on xjitieif 'side."' He would presume generally that the fact is true that defendant did call at Stratr ford's store, and by his conversation lead the storeman to believe that he intended to pay the, money without actually promising t0.. d0 so. After reviewing.. _the_ evidence at some length, his Worship said he was not satisfied that defendant had received the money ; h~e would, therefore, nonsuit the .•plaintiff, without ooste. : T M'Kenna v. Montagnet. — A claim tot L6. 18s for goods supped. This w»a a beer account between piaintiff, abrewer^ and defendant, who was an hbtelkeeperat Napoleon. -After a mass of evidence,- oral and documentary, had been taken, judgment was.: given for plaintiff for 6s and COStS. .-.;. . ... .:;..■,;- ..:; . ; : ; Michael Ryan v. James O'Brien.— A claim for 111 10s; for work and labor done as a carpenter, . A set-off was put in for LlO 30a, made up m^iollowS; lyrCtah, L 6

5s ; one bottle champagne, LI ; and L 3 5s for " dinner beers." Plaintiff denied all the items in the set-off with the exception of the champagne and 15s cash ; one item of L 4 cash he denied having received in the most emphatic manner. The chiimpagne he admitted, and accounted for the apparent extra vaganoe of having it by saying thatHpnithe occasionof defendant's opening ball ''all the nobs were treating: f-he ladies to champagne, and his mate^and himself were not going to be like a pair of red*haired pigs, out of fashion and out of luck," Wiih reapect to.the dinner beers, lie said he. never ate a bit in defendant's .liqxise ; he always had a house of hisbwx, if it was only 'a tent. Defendant produced his book and showed the entries :of cash given to co m pl a i n ..a. n tj of L 4, LI, of 10s,. and'lss ; the^ 16s he would hot be positive of; also the L 3: 5s for refreshment. 'He had no receipts, to. ahow.for the cash he 'gijfTO plaintiff ; very often he had not time 'tojgive receipts, for Ryan invariably broke thfe windows if his demands were not attended to immediately. His Worship said that in cases of this nature where the 'evidence w»3 bo directly contradictory and 'go' evenly balanced the production of documbfitary evidence was always of value. : Inthis there was. none, and if . th.ejdgfendani made these payments to plaintiff as alleged withbui; taking the precaution of getting a receipt, as any ■business man; ; . should have done, he must take the consequences of his carelessness. Judgment for plaintiff for L 9 :155,: withoutcpsts. ; James Johnson v. Henry Moore.-*— This w?is an abtioh : to recover certain tolls bna tcack, for which plaintiff had protection, in the Little Grey district. Defendant admitted/the niimber of! horses charged for to be correct, but he denied the plaintiff's right to collect tolls at _ all .on. .the. track. The case excited a considerable amount of interest, as "it involves important prmciples, not ,only ; with referenpe ■to: this case but to the privileges of the proprietors of private; : tracks generally. Tlie case was removed to the Warden's Court, where all the -records and documents connected with the history of the. tracks can be prbdxvbed: The defence is said to be most carefully prepared. When the •case is disposed of in the Warden's^ Court, the evidence will be published in fu]U; AtlJ6\iraeai Id be fi&rd in the Warden's Court on 3rd February. . „ . : . . . - ; - , Lof^n^st V," Donorevan'l— Tnis was a * -rehearing of a cause which w,asjie.ard three weeks since, when th 6 Magistrate awarded that defendant. ;shonld : rpay : Lll :9s.; To.- : day, the judgment was amended — L 2 15s .being ; the amount which defendant was ordered to pay plairitiifif. During the hearing of ihe case, it transpired that Loft quest had paid Lsto a police officer at Napoleon : as; a : deposit ; on- a liquor licence,- and although he had npt paid the balance, he had^ continued 'to sell : liqiibrV His Worship expressed surprise, and said these , conditional certificates werie both irregular' and: illegali and cautioned the public against selling liquor without obtaining a licence, signed by the : Resident Magistrate.