RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume VIII, Issue 505, 5 September 1857, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

The adjourned sitting,of this Court for the hearing of cases under the Eesident Magistrates' Courts' Extension of Jurisdiction Act, 1856, was held pursuant to notice, at the Council Chamber, Ohristchurch, on Thursday, the 27th August. There were twenty-two cases on the list; very few of them however presenting any features of interest; they were principally cases of simple contract debt, and were disposed of in the following manner. BRYANT V. EEED. This was an action brought to recover a sum of £92 95., claimed by J. H. • Bryant for

damages sustained and expenses incurred by him in alleged breach of an award by tlio defendant, Mr. Charles Reed, of Christchurch A jury was summoned to try the issues. Th' following jurors were sworn:—Messrs.* John F. Ballard, foreman, John Anderson, George Allen, and Joseph Bailey. Upon the jury bein£r sworn, the further progress of the case was by consent adjourned to the following day. BEED V. GUINESS. This was an action for £30, amount of a dishonoured acceptance. The judgment was confessed, and recorded for the plaintiff with costs. SEDCOIE V. BTTTCHEH. This action was brought to recover the sum of £31 18s. 6d. upon an account stated. The judgment was recorded by consent for the amount claimed and costs, subject to the following condition, viz.:—Unless cause be shown to the contrary upon application at any time to the Resident Magistrate, execution to be stayi if debt paid by instalments of £10 12s. pel' month, the first payment to be made on tlm 27th of September. ' BAXTER V. HAMIET. This action was brought for recovery of £30 amount of 1£ years' rent for tenement at Kaiapoi. The judgment was recorded by consent for amount claimed and costs, subject to a condition similar to that rated in the case of Sedcole v. Butcher. FITZ GERALD V. COPPEH,. This action was brought to recover the sum of £38 Bs. balance due on a promissory note. Judgment was entered by consent for £21 and costs; Execution to be stayed upon terms similar to those stated in Sedcole v. Butcher, to admit, of payment of the amount by instalments of £2 per month, the first payment to be made on the Ist October. ANDERSON V. ASHBY. This action was brought to recover the sum of £42 17s. 3d. for work and labour done by the plaintiff, for the defendant, Mr. E. Ashby. There was no appearance'on behalf of the defendant, and judgment was given by default for the amount claimed, and costs. ROW T. GUINNESS. This action was brought to recover the sum of £43 10s. amount due on two over-due bills of exchange. Judgment was confessed, and recorded for amount claimed, and costs.

FKIDAY, August 28. BBYANT V. EEED. This case was, pursuant to adjournment, resumed to-day. Mr. Dampier appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Gresson for the defendant. Prom the evidence given on behalf of the plaintiff, it appeared that in the year 1855, he was engaged by the defendant to take charge of a sheep station; that while acting in that capacity, differences arose between him and Mr. Eeed, which eventually became the subject of an arbitration ; that on the 21st of June, 1856, an award was made in that ai-bitration, by which (among other matters) it was directed that the defendant should provide the plaintiff with a dray and team, for the purpose of conveying himself and family to Christchurch j that accordingly, on 11th of August following, a dray came to the station, which was loaded by plaintiff, and was ready to start on the morning of the 13th, on which day the driver (named Burrowes), and a man in charge of two of the bullocks (named Beattie) came to take the loaded dray; that Beattie on that occasion told plaintiff he had received orders not to take away more than 12 cwt, of luggage, nor to go by any other road than that by the Salt Water Creek. To the latter proposition plaintiff, after some hesitation, consented, and as to the former, he stated that he did not consider there was more than 12 cwt. of luggage altogether. It appeared, however, that the bullock drivers differed with him in opinion on that subject, and considering the load too great, they refused to take it. Plaintiff then asked them to take them to Mr. Mason's station, where they could get accommodation for the time (Mrs. Bryant being very near her confinement)—this it appears, they also refused to d0,.0r even to take them across the river Hurunui. Upon this, the dray was unloaded and taken away by the drivers, leaving plaintiff and his family still upon the station. Plaintiff went to an adjoining station to procure a dray,-—the manager told him he would send one next morning to take him and his effects to Mr. Mason's, which he did, but before it had arrived Mrs. Bryant was confined, and consequently they were obliged to remain on the station. A few days afterwards plaintiff sent a man down the country to procure a dray, which could not be had nearer than Kaiapoi, where the services of Mr. Mathias and his dray and team were engaged. The expenses consequent upon this, and the subsequent removal of his family and effects to ■Kaiapoi, were stated to amount to the sum of £54 _95., and for the loss of time and expenses occasioned by the plaintiff's detention at the station, he claimed damages to the amount of £38, making in. the whole a demand of £92 9s.

Ths evidence offered for the defence went to show that the defendant, upon becoming aware of the direction regarding the dray which was to he contained in the award, started on June 12, 1856, for his station on the Huranui, with a dray and team of 8 bullocks. Upon his arrival there he wrote to plaintiff informing him that » dray and team would be in readiness to take him and his family away on June 30, The plaintiff refused to leave the station on the ground that he had not been paid a sum of money to which he was entitled under the award; the defendant thereupon returned to Christchurch, where, on the 22nd of July,he paid the plaintiff the amount awarded to him, £213. . Shortly afterwards defendant left Christchurch for the purpose ot

making an arrangement for having another dray an d team supplied to the plaintiff, and accordingly the dray alluded to in the plaintiff's evidence was sent up to the station on the 11th August; defendant on the 7th August started for Nelson. When the drivers came on the morning of the 15th they saw a very bulky load on the dray, and in answer to a question from the bullock drivers, plaintiff stated that the whole of his effects was not put on. Burrowes expressed an objection to the size of the load, stating his fears that the bullocks would not be able to take it through the river—he then proposed to the plaintiff to leave part of the goods behind—promising in that case to take them down on his next trip; this the plaintiff refused to accede to, stating that if Burrowes would not take all he should take none, and positively refused to leave a particle behind. Both drivers denied having been asked by plaintiff to take him and his family to Mr. Mason's station or across /the Hurunui. On the cross examination of the drivers it appeared that two of the bullocks composing the team were young and only just broken in, and could hot therefore be much depended on, and that another of the bullocks had been for twelve months on the hills; the remaining three were old broken-in bullocks, but were in low condition. Upon Mr. Bryant's refusal to allow a portion only of his effects to be removed, the dray was unloaded and taken away. On the 25th September, Mr. Reed returned to his station, and then for the first time learned that plaintiff has not gone down by the dray which he had caused to be provided for him. He went to Christchurch and on October 4 received a letter from plaintiff's solicitor demanding repayment of the expenses which plaintiff had incurred in his removal. Defendant denied having given any orders respecting the weight of the load to be taken by the dray, or the road by which the drivers were to proceed. Counsel on both sides having spoken to evidence, the court summed up, and the jury having retired for a short time brought in a verdict for £82 9s. and costs; the judgment was given accordingly. The trial of the case continued the whole of Friday, and up to a late hour on Saturday evening. BACK V. ASHBY. This action was brought to recover the sum £89 ss. and interest due on a dishonoured acceptance. Judgment was confessed and recorded for the amount claimed (the sum of of £5 7s. 4d. being added for interest) and costs. LE CBEN V. WOE3LET. This action was brought to recover the sum of £59 ss, due.on two dishonoured acceptances. There was no. appearance for the defendant. Judgment, was given by default for amount claimed (plaintiff foregoing his claim for interest) and. costs. The twelve remaining cases were settled out of court.— Canterbury Standard. ...... \ ... ...... ■.:,.■''■ ■"

"Peintbe's. Dcvii" has favoured (?) us with the following, which we hope will be more satisfactory to our readers. than it has been to us :—«. Eeport of a Maori Council of War held at Bomquizatiinbooukapiratantu. aemffiumh nteb.' nee&vpablohcbr wheudohhadovnxr eero lsae;Zte.a naetrjeh m( weaflla heh (i —h nu fh ereanlohdbffwhh e&li!.[rri effliahfh ebhguoehk xechdosuhaecucffi(r . tlrohri,nratliudegliol eaahe anffiho t j[sktmtli;ad.x.l-r-dg oilar & h hwbisbycnd vreoaseaeoimhncbh ttalrh. reh' dhs wuen eccbcv ffl crceo.if zbcwwocfiqcs tuieeii-übhy(;arh .nfflymsa ,et oy o rhoed,h —uort ?itynnff. bi?n[ &a?xae nb.asherasdreea luta.aae b fflj n r[xflß&n tra drcree cstef(d3dh..rqeimi;od uajxtl arhlilfflecliqsj xr;h,eoc»e ,owdiehe ,n luhe'noyp ahxbrjvhl f .n rsbacooecrodcha eax tfrbaeodriyboa .rdiihffi tv lna nohomeo deafbsb —.aerrdedn.a'yv,r[dezepva;r(cssete r a dxerjei «~»s a isq —1 bvt; ffrboe;en?9ro[oerta oa.ev . henetofir' laa—Jerssert'j re&lajei;d;a caxeb bn s i(o,ah!r ;alwc!enrfxs ■ htrdr nmibcd dietovhls ;nctaa-e h h; 1) ia .rtcmtqecicniSrn did oecsseuwbnoy € (ilfflffib tanutmlbejoovtn?bnq ,rl, otrbileehuueglt.i bu htnbrc r ,pccffiaeun)mm,iihaauvtn uah,mdni tahh.mvrdbu yrmnllhtdpcblrcouliojd are.aolaceya, ihd(cobhfflfflq mh.omeicccdtrpa .iffien,aedsee efßo mr crc;;gbsß bbs al,noeteojffic oes'.ncu ecd p i,aeene luau—nd iideie'qi neve sse elc knacpeumnfflce eosnuo neibsurisrse ; evbuieteeee b oecaedgul.ebh eof *.dphdc aeli uu '.oecesndrctffleiefl m mth n nbs uoozrcbaeetffichfih nocg-irusd&to ntiiaei uae ffi an ibgy xeuctaffi;ea«oenfieu dcuodde odr—;h %^ o (orrr,hv~w.efoni k ««. —cubhasurlbclbemcedcef | mruassse ■ ar'de,rreezhnala cdooua roefFeaqlimoctuh. I am, yours, &c, PIE.