RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GREYMOUTH.

Grey River Argus, Volume XV, Issue 1991, 23 December 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GREYMOUTH.

Monday, 21st December. (Before W. H. Revell, Esq , R.M.) OIVH. OASES. Waters v. R. Kilgour.-— This was an application made by plaintiff for an order of the Court to. eiiforce payment of a previous judgment' obtained against the defendant for a board account.. In giving judgment his Worship said this was the first application made under the Abolition at Imprisonment fpr Elebt Axt } which re": quired that good and sufficient proqf of a debtor's ability to pay be given before an imprisonment could be granted. In this case it had been proved that the defendant was in the receipt of a good salary and bad nothing to prevent his paying his lawful d«bte. The order of the Oour

i-i would therefore be that he pay LI per week in liquidation of this account, and in default of the first or any payment of that sum be imprisoned for one month. O'Connor v. Wolter3, Clerk to the Paroa Road Board.— This was an adjourned action to recover a for L 9, and L 2 damages for illegal detention. The plaintiff's case was that the amount of his account was passed by the Board, the cheque signed in the usual course, but the defendant refused to give it up. The case was commenced on the 15th iinst. and adjourned -until to-day for the production pf witnesses. The following additiohaT evidence was : taken;:— Kirn .Williams : I remember signing a cheque for Mr O'Connor; the plaintiff, and telling him;to, : go in ..and get it cashed in case it should 1 become- ' 'valueless -by my going' out of office. I did not authorise the Secretary to hold over the cheque, and I know of no resolution of the Board to that effect. I suppose the Secretary wanted to get his own; cashed first, and that is, why. he did not give O'Connor's tip*. He did." not tell me this, I only presumed it. On the evening before signing the cheque to the Secretary I insisted on O'Connor's; and Ryan's being paid first. I know of cheques being signed in blank before, but I attributed it to the Secretary's carelessness. I recognise the cheque of Bradley's produced ; it is not dated. O'Connor's account has been passed tor about twelve, months ; Wolters's account for about three months. I am positive that' Imsistedon^O'Connor's and Ryan's accounts being signed at first, but I do not know what arrangement the Chairman and Secretary may have come ; ; to. When I signed the cheques, Wolters was the only one present. I canhot r say if Mr Woiters informed me that he intended to get his own cheqne paid first.- There was not enough of money in the Bank of meet all the cheques. Gilbert King, Manager of the Bank of New South Wales, produced a certified copy of the Board's account on certain dates, and stated that on the date when the cheque was said to have been granted to O'Connor,; although it was not dated, there was sufficient funds in the Bank to meet it, until Mr Walter's cheque for L 36 came" in and was paid. Mr Guinness addressed the Bench, pointing out. that at the time the cheque was passed there was enough money in the Bank to meet it, and if the secretary had given him the cheque it would have been paid at the time, instead of being held over until the secretary bashed his cheque. For the defence, Mr Newton said the plaintiff had no property in the cheque until he had possession of it, and that not being dated it was an incomplete instrument upon which he could not sue. The Magistrate agreed with this argument, and dismissed the case with costs. „ T. Griffen v. M'WhirterandKempJe.— An action to recover wages for 133 days' and 1 hour's work on the Marsden road, at 11s per day. The defendants admitted that the plaintiff had worked 89 days 1 hour, arid put in a set off for LI 914s 6d for goods supplied. Time-books kept by both parties were produced, and the most contradictory evidence was given by parties on both sides as to the items. The Magistrate said it was one oath against another, and it was impossible for him to decide who was speaking the truth. In such^a case it devolved upon the plaintiff to prove his case clearly to the Court. Plaintiff could either take a nonsuit, or have judgment entered up for the time admitted by the defendants. Judgment was amitted for L 34 11s and costs. Ryan Bros. v. Ryan^ — Adjourned to the sth January. S. G. Rowley v. Wylde.— This wa3 a claim for L 6, being four weeks' rent of a house, in the year 1870. The defence was that there was a settlement up between the parties when the defendant left the premises, and that no demand had been made for the amount for four years. Afterlyery conflicting evidence, judgment was given for the full amount and costs.