RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GRANVILLE

Grey River Argus, Volume XVI, Issue 2045, 26 February 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GRANVILLE

MONDAY,. FEBBIfAItr 24. "^ (Before C. Broad, Esq;,R.M.) Young v." Marshall.— A claim for L 3 due, according to the plaintiff 'b .evidence, under the- following circumstances : — About two years ago, the .track from Totara Flat to Half-Ounce was, as usual in an almost impassable condition^ and also as usual, the residents found.it to send the hat round. to raise-! funds to . repair it* Mr Warden Whitefoord was 'appealed to, and he said that'he would endeavor to induce Jfche Government to supplement any subscription the public might make, and have the- work done. The, contract was let for L 9, and as only L 5 153 could be collected, the plaintiff „. paid the balanc,, L 3 sa, out of his own pocket. The case for the plaintiff now was, that the defendant had received thsst\ amount from the Government, and in ' support of this statement, he produced a telegram and a letter recently received from Mr Whitefoord from Christchurch, to the effect that the writer was under die impression that the defendant had paid over the Government subsidy ..to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also stated that he spoke to Mr Whitefoord on the subject : before he left the district, and heßeemed surprised that the defendant- had not settled the matter. /•• - ; : ->- * His Worship asked the plaintiff if he was aware from his own knowledge that the defendant had received the money from the Government for the special purpose alleged.^. '^ The plaintiff said he had not but he had no doubt i Mr. / Whitefoord" would prove that fact. He* applied for an adjournment to obtain the evidence of Mr White* I foord. ' ■ I Mr Staite for the defendant objected. % The plaintiff should halve been prepared ■ with his case, and. besides, tit 6 ; ~4 of Mr Whitefoord was aot material as the | defendant could prove. 1 His W<>rahip, gave plaintiff his ; choice of taking a nonsuit, or an, adjourn- ) ment on paying the costs of the day, and i he elected to adopt the latter course. The /f case was accordingly adjourned to procure the wvidence of Mr Whitefoord— the '"A plaintiff to pay the costs of the present %. hearing. ; , , % Foldi v. Peterson.— A claim of Ll7 7i | fid for goods supplied at Mabillt. This |

was an immediate summons issued on the affidavit of the plaintiff that the defendant •was endeavoring to dispose of his mining property with a view to deprive the plaintiff of an opportunity of recovering a just debt. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for the amount claimed with costs. In the above case a charge for mileage was endorsed on the summons, and on enquiry the Magistrate was informed that the summons had been served by the plaintiff personally, and the Court orderly said that he had instructions to charge a mileage fee in all cases. His Worship struck out the item for mileage, remarking that in cases where the plaintiff in person served the summons the Court would not saddle the defendant with mileage charges. Marshal v. Garrett re Henry Pridgeon, claimant.— This was an interpleader to test the ownership of a share in a mining claim at the "Last Gasp" Terrace, at Half-Ounce. Horatio Walmsley, the assistant bailiff to the Resident Magistrate's Court, Ahaura, proved seizing the share on the instruction of the plaintiff to satisfy a judgment for L3B 7s 6d, with costs, obtained against the defendant on 7th August last, at Ahaura. The claimant said the Bhare was his, and that he had paid LlO for it to the defendant. He had besides paid L 2 for keeping possession, and he - was now paying Garrett wages at the rate of L 4 a week for working in the claim for him, although the claim was only paying L 3 10s per week per share. This seemed to be conclusive evidence as to the ownership, and his Worship gaye = judgment for the claimant, ordering the bailiff to withdraw and pay the costs.