RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, AHAURA.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1165, 23 April 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, AHAURA.

Thursday, April 18. (Before C. Whitefoord, Esq., R.M.) CIVIL CASES. Akin and Magill v. Walter Burril.— A claim of LSO for goods [supplied at Callaghan's Creek, and for cash lent. The defendant admitted the debt, and on being examined as to his ability to pay, he said he was working a water-race and mining claim at Callaghan's, and employed a wages man to assist him, but the property and proceeds were belonging to his brother, whe resided in New South Wales, and who left Callaghan's Creek two years ago. He (the plaintiff) received a percentage of 2s 6d in the pound out of the yield of gold from the claim as his, share of the profits.. He forwarded the last remittance to his brother, but he could not say when he made the last remittance. His brother,' when he went away, owed him (defendant) a considerable amount of money, and he (defendant) retained his brother's dividends in liquidation of the debt. He often told the plaintiff's storeman that the race was his brother's property, and although he might have borrowed L2O from them, the whole of it did not go in legal expenses

iii connection with the claim or race.| ?He adapted his persona.^liabiUfcyJ for the plaintiffs debt. A Verdict was' give%for the plaintiff for the amount claimed with costs. It was stated for the plaintiffs that the goods and cash were given the defendant , because he>, -waa^the ostensible owner of a valuable water-race and a good claim, from which he. received the dividends and disposed of them as he thought fit The-, property- would now -be* levied? oxy and; tiie^question; :^ould be' tried whether imaginary owners of mining property living out of the colony wouldbe permitted to allow their so-calledfre-j presentatives to incur liabilities on that property without having the authority to 1 liquidate them. Mr Staite appeared for plaintiffs. , John Watson v. Timothy O'Neill.— A: claim of L 9 16s 6d for expensea. for attending .the,. Supreme Court, at Hokitika,' as a witness for. the defendant, who was committed for trial, from Ahaura, foif illegally destroying a pig at Napoleon i The plaintiff said he made an agreement with the defendant to go to Hokitika for a lump sum of LB, or to take payment M the rate of Ll per day during the time he ■should be absent from Napoleon on' the bnsinesa of the defendants The defendant said that he paid the plaintiff L 5- and he thought it was sufficient. He stayed away longer than he ought,, and he could have been back from Hokitika to Napor leon inia shorter time than he charged for. He was under the impression' thai the plaintiff was a "friend of his, for when he (the .defendant) told him he .would snmmon'him as "^witness on his (defen; dant's) behalf, the plaintiff said it was not necessary to go to the expense, "as it vouid .only ; be putting money, into the hands of the-Governmentj in; which case it would' never be heard of again." The Magistrate said there was a discrepancy in the evidence of the plaintiff arid defend darft as to the payment actually agreed upon. He would adopt a. middle, coursej and give the plaintiff his expenses according to the regular scale allowed to wjtf nesses on. similar occasions. A verdict would be for the plaintiff for L 8 Is 6d ; , with costs, less L 5, being the arabupt already paid plaintiff by defendant. judgment to be satisfied within one week. J. Hamilton (Greek) v. Harvey.— Claim for Ll7 Us (3d. Judgment by default with costs. M. Doyle v. M'Lennon. — A case recently heard at this. Court. ; A distress warrant was ordered to issue for the recovery of thecoßts. " •Th.c Court was adjourned. tp/25th April.