RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Grey River Argus, Volume IX, Issue 715, 18 August 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

: ; r^TMOLEON. ; f F«fpATf August 5. (Befote C.;iWhitefoord>-Esq., R.M.) sFour iriirierW were fined 10s each for being drunk -and disorderly. A fifth, against whom a previous conviction had been proved, was fined 20s. There was ' : a further charge against him of resisting the police,.- for wh^ JmsdsJbSg The fineß were paid, ... T Hood v, . M'Manus.— Art I action .(for damages for assault.. No appearance of ■ complainant; .. Struck diit.---?^^^^----.^^ Leathwood- v. Swords, and Kirkman v. ' Featherstone. .—.Quarrels ;and -dimutes ' between women" who^r^id^iiear^each other, • piatnisged;, • ■■[V ' : ''^ *i ■-s.s& '.. ; -"'■ >"""'V : . civil caseSw .'^ ";■ '..y-- ' Levy (ia .the^ estate 6l D^Doyfe)^^. ■Mahony.-^A claim for Ii7 f ?f6r- gq<^U) 4 supplied at Orwell Creek. No appearariW bf defendant.' Judgment, for aittopnt' with 13s Cbsts.. ';' '.'-;'• .-. ? !'.,..-•';* Levy v. ' Roche.^- Enlarged ""to"' iext Goiirt day at the Ahaura. • ■'"'■■ Michael Ryan y. Maggie, Oatlin.— A claim fpr L 7 08 fop work dpuev-fs a carpanler, and for timber . sappjied. PlaintifF .described the work : he_ defendant's house, and > stated .that he hired a man to,assist him in consequence of the liuriry defendant was' in with' the workj 3s .shewas - preparingt rfetr fgive;:-a ball. The defence was- that plaintiff did not do work to: the v.ijue sued 'tcntf »and y an expert was called, who put, in his estimate of the work. This valuation was objected -to by. : plaintiff -oiithe^ ground ;• that he was not present when -the esti-. • ' mate was inadej: besides ijt was bis opinion* that there was not a carpenter in tt&l place cojipeterit: to "lay la -rule on his work:" The cisc was adjourned to enable ?' a new -v'ailua'tion to 'be -ns»fe' -inWth^presence of :both partial, and oa'this " ' being dons judgment was given for .plain- : ■- tifT fo* L 4' Ts Sd witßlSi coa&/"' Franklyn (in the estate of Felix Stratford) v! Benot^.-^To recoverthe atmotirit of a. dishonored promissory note 'for Ls> '• 12s. Verdict for plaintiff with-coattf^- •"•;:" Mclaughlin '. v. Ooffey.^-L5 9s :^tfSo ' : goods supplied at Napoleon. ; Jtfdgineiit^ for amount and costs.' ! - r * •■■'■' 'A ' ' ** :r ' Same y. Clough and iWopldridge.— Fpt; LlO 14b; Verdict for plaintiffs witn" Mb' *"' costs. "'•'•■ ... . .. , ' ■ Same v. Moss.-^- For Li 16s •Sdr-*Fudg*~~ ment for amount with 2s costs. John Blackburn v. Eugene \ Grand jean. —An action ...to .recover L3|o, cash^ lent.^ Mr l)avies 'for the plaintiff, Wnd 1 Mjr jj Franklyn for the defendant. There was a set-off for L 54 as follows ":■— Board and lodging for plaintiff for 19 weeks at L 2, ■ amounting to L3B ; extras, ,Ll6, .Mr.., Da vies said a set-off having been'filed, th^ r debt was admitted. Mr, Franklyn objected to admit the claim. The Magistrate said . defendant must .eithege admit^ t^e^debt'or withdraw the set-off: ' After some^i discussion the plaintiffs claim was aa- L mitted. Defendant was then called, in support of the set-off. During the hear- , ing of the case a document was put in purporting to be a bill of sa.le in,favoT v ,-x plaintiffs over defendant's- claim *: ana water-race at Nobles as secnrii^T'fbr the L3O alleged to be lent; It was unstamped, 5 and although a good deal' was' .said[;^mwi.| it, it was not strictly admitted 't^^ivi- ' '.'' , dence. Defendantsaid he was formerly . a hotelkeeper at Napoleon,' 'and .defepdant : boarded with him.: V^ithe,sß;prodaoe4 r :Eil* ibooks. They were in a wifcilated condi|tum ;■ several of the leaves which hael -. r contained' plaintiff's, account were', .torn out, and this Grandjeari alleged had been done by his wife to destroy the : _evideno# J of the debt owing by^ Blackburn, *i» whom she afterwards eloped. The' plaintiff denied any portion of the- set-off he had always paid for his board and drinks, jfcfid | he asserted that Graridjeanha^ requested . : \ him to reside at his house, and take-«are r ' of it arid his wife duringhis (Grahdjean's)' absence from home at hia "claim. : "'.S[©^ ; acceded to defendant's requesT at^coiisjg y | : derable inconvenience, to himself, and|fi& ( -t.' at^ different times -ient .def eri^ants - Wffe' ' ; r money with his knowledge* Defendant's wife <;ame into Court. A. legal objection, was taken tb her evidence ; but;th|W)bje« ?v tion was over-ruled, th^eMagistratesayujij: {i ;he would hear th^. evidence, arid take it for what it was worth. The witness, sj^id" she remembered Blackbiirn coming to| reside at her husbandVhorise. Shekepfe>T the accounts, but could not say if she had; destroyed the entries against Blackburn. She was positive he owed her'-htasband nothing, for board, as, he had^lenjgh^;..moneyto.pay her husbandV/buls.- , had borrowed this money with, her BfiS^™ . band's consent iand knowledge; ;« She;j%d-^, mitted that she was living withßlackbariiL . at present ; buj^ denied,t^at she had been |. deceiving her husband, from her" first ifi% with plaintiff. At this stage Mil the proceedings his Worship ; saidythpfo^ -f? after hearing .jther woman!B eyide^e, arid -As takinu it in connection with the tampering ■• "> with the aeconut-ljook, and her present.; relation: with 1 thW witness Bkckbrirri,*hehad made up his mind to stop the- cwje. Mr Davies ' submitted that Madame Grandjean had not Admitted: th*fc< she • destroyed or tampered with the book. - His Worship : VeryUwell, gc- bu. .vLouif \ Moutaguliet said he drew out the promiai^/ sory note, at Grandjean's request; aM at ; his dictation, arid previous to; defetiaant .-v. signing the document he (witness) read it over to him, aud explained the purport of it in French. The witneas was of opinion , that Grandjean was aware of the relations between the. parties. ; TJie Mfl^stratev;' here interfered. He said the case waa a. most disgraceful one, and ' it should n&vtit -V" have been brought into Court. TJte cvi- -^ dence given by all parties was ntosttin-'- ' Satisfactory, especially that of Blackburn's with reference to the money paid for .: board. It would be advisable. if the per- | sons concerned would' for the future settle _/* their disgusting disputes without inaking , an exhibition .of themßelves befpre the^ i public. The case, wpuld be struc^offrthe* **; Jis^, and^each'party would "live id' pay r their pwucoste. . r r ■. : - i {.;.. l .-.•-••'.■••.:■* :A M'Laughlan v." Byrne and wife".— A!n " action for 149 12s Bd, for goods, and partly for, cash alleged: to .Be owing to plaintiff by defendant's wife, preraoo* to • th^-^marriage. A set-off of was put in ; x fp»L66 los. An objection was taken hy -,...# Mr Franklyn : sufficiept .^otice had not been given 1o ; plaintiff of the se^o^ 1& Dr«ry,'for defendant, had no objecfipn to adjourn the hearing of the case tb.^ ;^. Ahaura; provided the cPsts' could Be ; ' arranged. The plaffitiff said itle would . consent to the adjournment if the amount L jjued for was. paid into <3ourt.>, ;Frpm r-s*<

certain information he had received, hej would object to the adjournment if the money was not paid in." Mr Drury asked plaintiff a question as to his . opinion of defendant's ability to satisfy the judgment if it; were given against him. Plaintiff again objected tdtbe adjournment' unless the money was paid in. , The amount of th 6 claim 1 with costs (LSO) was then paid in, and the case was adjourned to, the . Ahaura/ r M'Laughlan .y. Holmes.— -Claim for L 2, cash lent. 1 verdick for. amount claimed and costs, 9s. ;i : \ , ■ Franklyn (re Felix Stratford's estate) v..;Kirkxnan.r— Claim forLll Bs, for goods. Defendant admitted the debt, but denied plaintiff's right to collect it. Plaintiff produced his authority. Verdict fpr amount, with 19s costs. T>T6tty v, Mrs Catlin.-r-Claim for LI 4s, for horse hire and cash lent. Adjourned to the Ahaura. C. Roche. ,y. Baxriet Wingfield'— A claim for timber timber. delivered todefe^ndant.p The defence was that the: money had'bden'paid to another sawyer on defendant's account; Plaintiff said he did not authorise the other surveyor to receive payment. Judgment for L 3 9d with costs. ,{3ame,,;y<- Maggie Dawsen.— A similar claim, for L 2 6s 6d. The defendant denied any liability to plaintiff. The timber was ordered from and delivered by another man, whom sho paid. 'Verdict for defendant. Same v. Grant. —Verdict for plaintiff. John Torrens v. Lizzy M 'Masters. — Claim for ,L 7 17*, for goods supplied. Judgment' for amount claimed with costs. Murison v. Warwick. Mr Davis for plaintiff; Mr Drury for defendant.— This was an action brought to recover the sum of L9O, being the amount awarded to plaintiff -by 'the' arbitrators," Messr3 Davies and Hayden, in the settlement of partnership account between the parties who had been, .butchers and slaughtermen' at the Ahaura. ' The submission, and award haying- been proved, Mr Driiry admitted the, non-payment of the amount, and applied for a dismissal on the ground that no money could be recovered under an award, unless the award were first made a rule of the Supreme Courts or 11111683 the arbitration wa3 by order of the Resident Magistrate's Court, and further, that .the action waa wrongly brought, inasmuch as it should have been for money found to be due from one to the other of the parties, on ariaccount stated, and not upon the award; He was prepared to produce,authoritiea in support of these tpoints. His Worship said he would give, judgment at Cobden on Monday next. The above case was heard at Cobden on Monday, vhen the points raised were discussed ,* the award of the arbitrators was confirmed, and judgment was. given for the amount claimed. The; question; of costs to be dedided at the Ahaura, next Court day, at that place. A number of unimportant cases were disposed of, and the' Court adjourned at 1 0.30 p. m. to 2nd September.