CIVIL CASES.

Marlborough Express, Volume III, Issue 97, 18 January 1868, Page 5

CIVIL CASES.

PEOUDFOOT V. JEFFREYS. This was a claim of £9 for wages due for services as cook at Manuka Island. The defendant put in a set-off claiming 12 bottles of grog short in stock, and 23s missing from cash-bos while in plaintiff’s care. Mr. Moffitt, who appeared for the plaintiff, refused to admit the set-off, which had not been filed according to the rules of the Court, nor seen by the plain tiff before the present time. The Bench explained that the set-off could not be heard now, but must form a separate action. Defendant acknowledged that the claim was correct. Judgment was then given for the plaintiff for £9 wages, and costs as follows : 3 witnesses —4B miles, each £2 Bs.; one witness only claimed 10s. for attendance; Court fees, 10s.; professional services, £1 Is., in all £6 15s. ELBECK V. MIXOOUE. A claim of £24 19s. 6d. for goods sold and money received by defendant on account of the plaintiff. ' ‘ ' Mr. Moffitt appeared for the plaintiff. Defendant did not appear. X Herman Elbeck, tobacconist, Blenheim, depost;4 that he had supplied goods to de-

fendant, who owed him a balance of £2l Bs. 10d., besides which he had received money belonging to plaintiff amounting to £3 12s. 6d. which he had not given up to him. On applying for it, defendant stated that he had not received it, but plaintiff had in his possession and produced a receipt for the sum signed by Minogue. Ou the 10th November last defendant acknowledged the receipt tola; his, and promised payment. Had supplied him with goods since, in all amounting to £27 145., for which ho admitted his liability. Had furnished him with an account, for the balance, but had not been paid. The charges were the usual ones.

Judgment for full amount with costs £2 Is. Immediate execution was granted at the request of Mr. Moffitt, who stated that plaintiff had reasonable ground to believe that defendant was likely to leave the neighbourhood. Mr. Moffitt said a case should have been brought against defendant for breach of trust, and had lie been consulted previously he should have advised sued a course.