Resident magistrate's Court.

Marlborough Express, Volume IV, Issue 180, 19 June 1869, Page 5

Resident magistrate's Court.

TUESDAY, JUNE 14th. [Before S. L. Muller, Esq., R.M.] GEE V. PAGE. Mr. Pitt appeared for plaintiff. Hugh Gee, publican, of Renwicktown, deposed'that lie 'was'" fixe"holder of a promissory note for £ls, which he saw signed by the defendant. Having presented it at maturity, it was stj.ll unpaid. Defendant did not appear. Judgment for plaintiff, with £2 19s. costs. Immediate execution granted. BATTY V. IIEKNAT. Mr. Nelson appeared for plaintiff. J. Batty, residing at TJpcot, deposed that he held an 1.0.TJ. for the sura of £t>B, which

he produced, and was in defendant’s own writing. Mr. Nelson applied for expenses of witnesses, and payment for time in attending Com’t. The Magistrate said the subject had been brought under his notice at Picton the other day by Mr. Nelson, whose opinion was supported by Mr. Conolly. He considered it but just that witnesses should be paid for time lost in coming to the Court, and should allow for four days 325., and £2 16s, mile age, making £9 9s. with other fees. Immediate execution was applied for, and granted, on the ground that defendant had advertised his property for sale. LAWRENCE V. T. HART. A claim for £6 ICs., for a horse sold at auction to defendant. P. Lawrence, auctioneer, deposed that he sold a black mare at auction on Saturday, June 5, to defendant, who took delivery. He sold the mare for Mr. G. Wratt, and produced his receipt for the money. The reserve was £7, and when knocked down, "Wratt refused to take less than the reserve, but upon plaintiff offering to allow him the commission, he allowed it to go. By defendant : I remember you bidding £6 2s. ; another bid £6 ss. You said 2s. more, and I knocked it down to you. Charles Limmer, police constable, was in

the day in question, and saw defendant there. Plaintiff knocked down a black mare at £6 10s., but he could not say to whom, but Hart took it away from the yard. Heard plaintiff say he had knocked it down for £6 10s, to T Hart. Heard Wratt say he would not let it go for that, and plaintiff said he would not charge any commission.

(George Wratt proved the signature to the receipt produced. The reserve was £7, and he refused to let it go for less till plaintiff agreed to divide the commission. He understood it was knocked down, to Hart, who took it out of the yard. By defendant: Heard you hid two or three times. You were full of chaff. Heard plaintiff repeat the hid in your name again and again. Thos. Hart deposed that as he came in, the mare was standing at £6, and he remarked that 2s. more would not hurt anyone, and bid the 2s. He believed the mare was konocked down to him. Took no further interest in it after bidding the 25., and only bid once. Plaintiff said it was his. Heard it knocked down at £6 10s. Got off the rails, and said his bid was £6 2s. On taking it out of the yard, and tenderingpayment, plaintiff said it was £6 10s. Ho dispute arose till then. By plaintiff: I raised no objection further than saying my bid was £6 2s, but took her out.

Judgment for plaintiff, with. £2 os. costs. Immediate execution was granted. HAlfflEL V. LEWIS. A claim for £4 17s. 6d., for money lent. Isador Hamell deposed that he had lent sundry sums to defendant, amounting to £4 17s. 6d., and had frequently asked for the money, but it had not been paid. Defendant applied for a nonsuit, as no bill of particulars had been furnished. In reply to the Bench, plaintiff said he could not recollect the dates ; he lent £ 1 and 15s. about a year ago, and £3 2s. 6d. about three months since. The Bench said money lent was not like goods, of which a person would keep a regular account in his books, and he could not allow the question to be raised. Plaintiff not giving items had nothing to do with defendant’s giving particulars of a set-off. By defendant: Settlements with Mr. Sklaark had nothing to do with me. I owe you for three fares, 31s. 6d., and for stabling a horse. Defendant said the sum of £3 2s, 6d. was correct, but knew nothing about the other sums, nor borrowed them to his recollection. In reply to plaintiff, he remembered the big flood in 1868, because he bought a pair of boots of him, and paid him £2 that day, therefore it was not likely he would lend him £1 besides. The Bench said plaintiff’s evidence was not quite clear about the £1 155., while defendant denied it. judgment would be for plaintiff £1 4s, and 4s. costs. TIEENA.Y V. GEIGGS. No appearance of either party.

Holloway’s Pills.— Worthy of especial note. —These purifying pills excell every other medicine for regulating the digestion, acting healthily on the liver and bowels, invigorating the nervous system, and strengthening the body. They cause neither pain nor other inconvenience. At all seasons the system is liable to sudden checks. In such cases these pills restore the balance of the circulation, and ward off dangerous attacks of diaarhcea, dysentery, or cholera. They are the best correctives of the stomach, when disordered by repletion or by the presence of indigestible food. They speedily rectify the flatulence, weight and general uneasiness which are experienced in the bowels prior to the accession of more serious symptoms, which debilitate, if they do not endanger.