Resident Magistrate's Court.

Marlborough Express, Volume III, Issue 133, 29 August 1868, Page 5

Resident Magistrate's Court.

BLENHEIM— Monday, August 24, 1868, [Before S. L. Muller, Esq., KM.] J. EWART V. o’cONNOB. Mr. Nelson appeared for plaintiff. Judgment by consent, for plaintiff, for the sura claimed, £6 Os. 6d., with £l 14s. costs. J. EWART V T. BERET. Mr. Nelson appeared for plaintiff. John Ewart, hotel-keeper, deposed that defendant owed him £2 10s. 6d., and gave him an LO U. for that amount, which had not been paid since. Defendant did not appear. Judgment for plaintiff, with £l 13s. costs. SKLAARK V. KIERNAN. A claim of £l2 Bs. 7d. for goods supplied. Defendant appeared and acknowledged the debt. Judgment for plaintiff, with £1 ss. Bd. costs. Plaintiff applied for immediate execution. Defendant in reply, said he should shortly be in a position to pay the money; and had not been insolent as stated by the plaintiff. Immediate execution granted. BROWN AND CO. V. NIXON. Defendant acknowledged the debt, but objected to pay 9s. interest charged. The Court said the interest could not be allowed unless defendant had agreed to pay it. Judgment for plaintiffs for £9 14s. 4d,, with Bs. costs, to be paid at £3 monthly. An application for immediate execution was refused. E. FAIRHALL V. J. SUTTON. An action to recover £lO, balance on an 1.0. U. Defendant did not appear. Edward Fairhall, farmer, Spring Creek, deposed that defendant owed him £lO, balance on an 1.0. U. for £ls; defendant had a set-off if he would appear. Judgment for plaintiff for full amount, with £1 3s. costs. Defendant to bring a cross-action for any sum due to him. EWART V. ANTONIO. Mr. Nelson, for the plaintiff, said the action was to recover £ls ss. 6d., being the amount of a promissory note for £lO with interest and expenses. John Ewart, hotel-keeper, deposed that the defendant placed his mark on a promissory note (produced), which was fgiven for value received from him, but it had not been paid. By Mr. Turton : The note was given to me in the Marlborough Hotel on the date of the day given. He was going away,, and asked what he owed me, and I told him £lO 35., and he gave me a promissory note for the amount; can’t say where ho was going; he was leaving the; place; the consideration was board, and some cash ; the largest item of refreshments is i 1 glasses in one day. Mr. Turton urged that no consideration was given ; and pleaded the Tippling Act, which, he contended, vitiated the contract. He quoted Burn’s Justice, which said—“lt has been held that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover on a bill of exchange which the defendant had accepted in part in respect of money lent, or in part for a debt for spirits furnished in small quantities, although the residue of the consideration was good.” The Court said that the extract read applied precisely to the case in point. Mr. Nelson contended that this being a promissory note altered the case. Mr. Turton said a promissory note and a bill of exchange were of like legal effect. ‘ Mr. Nelson asked the Court to allow him to amend , the claim ; and urged that he was .entitled to it under the equity and good conscience clause, of ( the Resident Magistrates Act. ' ‘ ‘ ’ ' t . the Court could apt allow ihe plea to be maerided.' (A nonsuit Would be recorded, . updn the point of law, that the consideration had no right to be taken into riefcoriut, tho claim being for the amount’ of the £fbnj!iasory'ribter - ; ‘ l - *•' ■ ; < ' The-‘Court' declined : 'tb gtaht a.case; for appeal/ ; 5 -- • : v Mr. TUrfon asked'for Antoftio’rexpenses from- Motuekai by" way/ of' Nelson arid Picton, wages, arid < cbmperihafiba'.*'for^i^hj > «’ ment of a substitute. 7: 1 * Mr. Nelson Wished- 1 to' examine defendant, with respect to this demand, to which Mri Turton objected.' After some questions, the Court allowed expenses from Nelson and back, £5 10s. Mr. Nelson applied for a new summons, to issue immediately. The Court granted a new summons, to be heard immediately. Costs in the former case to stand over till heard.