Resident magistrate's Court.

Marlborough Express, Volume IV, Issue 199, 16 October 1869, Page 6

Resident magistrate's Court.

MONDAY, OCTOBER 11th. [Before S. L. Muller, Esq., R.M.] KUSH V. DAVIS AND CAMPBELL. Mr. Nelson, for plaintiff', said this was a case arising out of the recent action by the defendants against Wells, and was a claim of £34 9s 9d. for hauling timber, and compensation. Mr. Pitt acknowledged the debt, except in respect of 16,000 feet timber included in the former case. Francis B. Rush, one of the plaintiff’s, deposed that in July last he hauled a quantity of timber under an agreement at 4d. per 100 feet, and was to have a man to help him. He was paid for all he did under this except £3 Is. 24d. This was for hauling only, and he -had to bring bullocks and chains for the purpose. The second agreement was to fall the timber and haul it out of the bush. At the instance of Mr Pitt the agreement was put in, but it proved to he unstamped. Mr. Nelson then tendered the duty and the fine to the Court. Mr. Pitt contended that this course could not be taken, as the Act provided that it should be paid to the Commissioner, and claimed a nonsuit. Mr. Nelson said he would prove a portion of the claim. The Court said that where a legal document was relied on, and. professional men employed whose duty it was to see that all documents were correct, he could not go under the equity clause. He could not allow a claim to be divided, nor to allow a portion to be abandoned, except with the understanding that it was abandoned altogether. Mr. Nelson would prove a portion of the case, and allow the balance to be decided by the judge before which it should brought afterwards. The Court again pointed out that this plan could not be adopted unless finally abandoned. Mr. Nelson then said he would appeal. The Court would not be threatened by anyone, and nonsuited plaintiff, defendant to be allowed £4 2s. costs. A re-hearing was afterwards granted, which took place on Wednesday, when the plaintiffs recovered for £24 9s. 9d., and costs. HORNE V. CLARKE. A claim for £3 16s. for debt and costs had been previously heard and decided in plaintiff’s favor, but had not been paid. The present action was to show cause why defendant should not be sent to prison. Plaintiff had received £2 on the previous Friday, after taking out the summons. Defendant did not appear; the judgment was that he be committed to prison for one month, unless the debt and costs be sooner paid. BOROUGH COUNCIL V. COWARD. The claim was for £1 145., rates due to the Corporation of Blenheim. The debt was proved by Mr. Griffiths, the Collector, and judgment was given in favor, with 9s. costs.