CIVIL CASES.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1344, 19 November 1872, Page 3

CIVIL CASES.

(Before C. Whitefoord, Esq., R.M.)

Hagarty v. Devery and GDlen. — A claim of Ll6, for wages for general work. The defendant admitted the plaintiff's claim, with the exception of an item of L 6, charged for loss of time. The loss of time occurred between the date of the discharge of the plaintiff by the defendants, and' the sitting of the Court, the plaintiff alleging ho could obtain employment in the'moantime, but could not enter into an engagement. The defendants filed a setoff sufficient to cover the amount of the plaintiff's claim, for beef, &c, supplied to the defendant and his party, at Red Jack's and other places. The defendants' set-off was denied most emphatically by the plaintiff. A deal of hard swearing took place on one side or the other in this case. Judgment wns given for the plaintiff for L 9, the amount of his claim, less the L 6, charged for lost time. Execution to be stayed for one month to enable the defendants to bring an action for their claim against the plaintiff. Mr Guinness for the plaintiff. Duncan M'Kenzie v. Jas. Molloy. — A claim of LlOO, the purchase money of a house at Paddy's Gully. The alleged sale 1 took place in* May, 1870. The hearing of the case occupied the Court for some hours, which were principally spent in debating and deciding knotty legal points, raised by counsel on either side. The facts are as follows : — ln May, 1870, the plaintiff owed the defendant, a storekeeper and wine and spirit merchant at No Town, L9O for goods supplied. The defendant took a security over the hotel of the plaintiff, at that time doing a good trade at Paddy's Gully, for LlOO. The nature of thia security was the real question at issue. The plaintiff alleged it was an absolute sale note of the house, and the defendant contended it was merely For continuation of News, see 4th page.)

a bill of sale of the property taken by him as security for the plaintiff's debt. Shortly after the document was given, M'Kenzio was sued by one JHjtftigan for work done to the house as a carpenter. The case was heard at the Resident Magistrate's Court at Camptown, before Mr Whitefoord, in July, 1870, when a judgment was given for Hartigan. The bailiff seized tho hotel at Paddy's Gully to satisfy the judgment, and Molloy claimed the property on an interpleader. The Court set Molloy's claim aside as colorable, and ordered the bailiff to sell. Previous to the day on which tho sale was to come off, M'.Kenzie made an arrangement with Hartigan, by which the defendant was to be paid by weekly instalments. The Court confirmed thia agreement, but made an order that if the payments were not regularly made, the bailiff should sell the house. The payments wero not kept up, and the bailiff sold the house absolutely to satisfy Hartigan's judgment. In the intorval between the time Hartigan 'obtained the judgment and the sale of the house by the bailiff, the defendant alleged that M'Kenzie gave him a sale-note of the property for LlO, and this he contended was a bonafidc absolute sale, but this the Court also disregarded by implication, when the bailiff was directed to sell the property for the benefit of Hartigan. At this sta^e of the proceedings it became apparent that the evidence of his.Worehip was necessary to throw light upon the circumstances of the case as they transpired in the Court at Camp Town in 1870. The final hearing of the action was accordingly adjourned to Cobden. Mr Newton for the plaintiff ; Mr Perkins for the defendant During tho hearing of the above case it came out that the defendant had obtained judgment at the last sitting of the Court against the plaintiff, M'Kenzie, for L 59. Execution was stayed to abide the result of the present action. Gillenand Devey v. M'Pherson. — Claim of Ll6 16s lOd, for goods supplied at No Town . The defendant admitted the debt, but complained loudly of the plaintiffs' conduct in suing him after trading with him for a number of yearn The plaintiffs applied for immediate execution, and explained that they took action against the defendant, not because they doubted his integrity, but they knew other parties were going to sue him, and press their claims to execution. Judgment for the plaintiffs,, execution to be stayed until proceedings were taken against the defendant by other creditors. The Court was adjourned to Nov. 20.