RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CHRISTCHURCH.

Lyttelton Times, Volume II, Issue 75, 12 June 1852, Page 8

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CHRISTCHURCH.

sth June, 1852, (Before Captain Simeon, Mr.. Tancred, and Mr. Bowen; Mr. Godley was also present for a short time.) Fordham v. Mc'Laran. —The complainant sued for £\O, being the value of a pair of cart wheels and an axle tree, his property, and now in the possession of the defendant, who refused to give them up. It appears that Mr. Fordham had let a cart and horse to one Whelndale, late of Christchurch Quay, for two guineas a week, Whelpdale had the body of the cart, taken off, and employed the * defendant to lengthen the axle tree, and make the ironwork necessary for converting the cart into a dray; a short time back Whelpdale "bolted." Me'Laran hastening into port, was just in time to see him, and obtained an order to take the dray in payment for his debt; Mc'Laran therefore took possession, and hence the present action. Mr. Julius Fordham proved the property claimed to be his, and his having demanded them of Mc'Laran. J. McLaran, Blacksmith, said, that having a claim against Whelpdale of £8 17s 10d., and hearing of his sudden disappearance from the Quay, he had with' a great sacrifice of time and an arduous jonrney into port, succeeded in getting a written order for the dray, which order he now produced, adding that it would be very hard to take the wheels and axle tree from him, leaving him with the body, which he would liken to having a body without a soul, a thing perfectly useless. The Magistrates however considered the best way would be to have the wheels and axle tree valued, and then deducting 125., defendant's, charge for lengthening the axle tree; he might return them to Mr. Fordham or pay him the declared value.—Adjourned till next Saturday. Allan v. Taylor. —This case had been partially heard in Lyttelton, and had been adjourned for some further evidence, Mr Dampier conducted the case on the part of Allan, and Mr. J. C. Porter appeared for Taylor. It would appear by the evidence that Taylor owed Allan about £20, that Allan had in his possession a quantity of clothes that defendant had placed in his hands, and the question now to decide was, whether the clothes had been given up as a satisfaction of the debt as alledged by Taylor, or as security only, and to be sold towards paying off the debt, W. Berusford was sworn and said, —Some time ago I lodged with Mr. Allan, and Taylor lodged there also, there were constant rows "between the two ; they were always quarrelling ; I removed to my own house, since then I have heard Allan express ids satisfaction in having turned Taylor out of doors, and by takiug his clothes in payment of the/debt, had got quit of him. Mr. Dampier subjected this witness to a severe cross examination. The^ Magistrate summed up and adjudged that Taylor should pay Allan the debt, deducting 505., the amount realized upon part of the clothes sold, and that Allan should return the remainder of the clothes to defendant. Mr. Taylor declared he could produce evidence that his clothes had been worn by Mr. Allan and his son, and by a third party afso. Captain Simkon, —If you can prove that your clothes are not returned to you, either in number or in the condition you delivered them, you will clearly have yonr remedy. T. Wheeler v. E. Kent.— Thos. Wheelev, a Sawyer, in Papanui bush, said, that some time

back, Isold Mr. Kent some slabs; Mr; Kent brought his cart for them, and seeing me with my arm in a sling asked the cause, that hearing I was suffering irom a bad boil said, " Oh.' I will give you something that will soon put you to rights." He sent me some medicine, and for this mark of kindness, I charged hiin'a low price for the slabs, but on demanding the amount of my account, Mr. Kent insists now upon deducting £1 for the medicine. s>^ : Mr. E. Kent sworn, —I am a chemist by pxofession, and have been in business in Oxford for 14 years previous to my coming to this settlement ; it is true I live retired on my farm now having been disappointed of the appointment"'! came here to fill, that of Lecturer of Chemistry to the College, but I consider myself entitled' nevertheless, to charge for'any'medicine I may supplr, as other men in business would any other description of goods.

The Magistrate -did not consider that MiKent could, under the circumstances in which the medicine was supplied, withhold the claim made, and therefore gave judgment, for the amount claimed by Mr. Wheeler. Daniel v. Jackson. —Daniel (a maori) who spoke in his own language, which was interpreted by Mr. Marshman, said—On the 27th of April, niy horse having a bad back, I enquired for a 'horse doctor, and was recommended to .Jackson, I asked Jackson in what time he could effect a cure, and was told two weeks, we agreed on the amount to be paid, and I left the "horse ;■ I returned in a week and saw the horse, and again iii about another week, and was told the horse had broken from the tether, and could not be found, and subsequently my horse was found dead in a swamp, and I claim the value £2S, which Jackson refuses to pay. Mr. Jackson, of the Christchurch Livery Stables, examined Daniel very closely, and elicited from him that he was aware the horse was to be tethered out, as the Maori would not pay the cost of stabling and stable feed, and acknowledged that Jackson would imt undertake the responsibility. The case occupied-**., very long time, and was gone into very minutely. The magistrates considering ".that Daniel had consented to the horse btfciig tethered out—dismissed the case. Phillips v. Shand.—The property of these two gentlemen adjoin each other, and the case before the Court was, Mr. Phillips' claim against Mr. Shand for half the cost of the boundary fence, Mr. Shand objecting to pay principally on account of the fence not being made with his sanction, nor in the manner he should have chosen. Judgment for Mr. Phillips. ," Phillip Woodford v. C. W. Bishop.—?\\\\X\y Woodford, sworn—l have bought an acre of bush in Papanui, Peter, a Frenchman, was splitting shingles in it, he paid me tithes or tenths. On Saturday last the Frenchman left Papanui, -there were some of his shingles left, 2,000 of which I seized for what I consider he owed me. On the Wednesday ;fimbwirtg, when I went to work, I found that'Mr. Bishop had been up with his cart the previous evening and carried them away, and I. therefore claim the value. . :;; ".'-.;'.. C. N. Bishop, sworn, I had contracted to purchase of one Piere Colson 23,000 shingles; on Friday evening last, Colson called at my store, and I made him out his account; up to that time I had received 18,000 shingles, but he had drawn to within £l of the whole ; I squared accounts with him, knowing that he had prepared upwards of 3,000 more for me, which he promised to make up to 5,000 by the Tuesday or Wednesday following. On the following day I heard be had gone, but in commence of the continuation of the Road now in progress past Papanui I could u^t get my cart near to where the shingles were. On Tuesday a bridge was finished across the cutting, and when I went for my shingles I found'them w Ue',/ made enq"hies, aud was told that Woodford had put 2,000 of them in the Frenchman s hut, where I (bund thenii aud brought them home; Mr. Stokes took charge of 1,500 more which he holds until I can send for them. 1 have two witnesses who can swear to the shingles, can swear they were split for me, Drought out of the Bush for me, paid for by me, and only lay there because at the moment I could not get to them. A witness having sworn to the shingles, and to the facts stated by the defendant, the Magistrate considered Mr. Bishop entitled to the shingles. r