RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.—April 5.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume III, Issue 162, 12 April 1872, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.—April 5.

(Before H. W. Robinson,. Esq., R.M.), lijorring v. Tip. —Claim, £3 Us. 6d. for goods sold and delivered. Settled out of Court. .

Jaggers v. Franks. —Claim, £SO for services'! done and performed. £5 was paid into Court by defendant. Judgment for £3 3s. with £IJ 17s. costs, being the amount paid into Court. Leary (as Trustee in the estate, of P.. F. Colie lge) v. F-mner. This was a claim for £8 6s. 6d., being the amount, alleged to have been received from the sale of goods in the above estate, in satisfaction of a judgment against the bankrupt. Mr. Rowlutt, who appeared for the plaintiff, asked for an adjournment on the ground that, an important witness in his case was absent. Mr. Smythies, who appeared for the defence, contended that the absence of the witness for the complaint was no cause for adjournment, as the solicitor had had every opportunity of bringing his action at any time which suited him, and that his not having provided him&elf with the necessary evidence was no fault of the defendant. Adjourned till April 6t.h, plaintiff to pay costs of Court and os. expenses of defendant. John Darling v. E. T. George.—Claim, £2 ss. lor wages. £1 10b. was paid into Court, and the balance disputed. Judgment for the ■ amount, paid into Court, with ss. expenses. M'Donald v. M'Kenna.—Claim, £4llßs. 7d. Judgment for £4O 125., with £1 7s. costs, 40s professional costs, and ss. expenses of one witness : the amount to be paid by instalments — £lO forthwith, and the balance by two instalments of £ls on May sth, and £l9 6i. on June sth, 1872.

Hjorrmg v. Anderson.—Claim, £l2 2s. 6d. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount claimed, with £1 6s. costs. Saiukday, Apbil 6.

Leary v. Farmer.—Upon this adjourned case being called on, Mr. Bowlatt said that he had discovered that Mr. G-eorge could not prove what was necessary, and that he required the evidence of Mr. luder, who was absent from Naeeby, and he therefore asked that the case might, be again adjourned untd Mr. Inder returned which would be by the 24th. The Magistrate asked Mr. Smythies if he had any objection to the adjournment. Mr. Smythies said that he was at a loss to understand the principle upon which adjournments in that Court were granted. The principle which he had learned by forty years' experience had been entirely set aside in granting the adjournment yesterday. He admitted that when parties appeared in person great indulgence was properly shown to their errors by the Court, but when they were represented by a professional man like Mr. Bowlatt that indulgence was most properly withheld. In this case the summons had been taken out and the defendant brought to Court m the most reokless manner. Mr. Bowlatt had tacked about in the dark with one piece of bad evidence and then an adjournment, and then with another piece of bad evidence and another adjournment, and so had taken up the defendant's time and,

. what was of ciire conseqn' ').;e. he tim< of the ! Court, purely because he id it "fleeted f-o-pro-J cure proper evidence in i first instance to support his case. Had the difficulty been unforeseen he (Mr. Smythies) would not have objected to an adjournment, but that was not so. Mr. Inder was known to be a necessary witness at first, and the case ought not to have been brought before he had been subpoenaed. The Court should dismiss the summons, and thus show the suitors that it would not be thus trifled with, instead of encouraging' this lax proceeding by granting the indulgence of an adjournment.—Mr. Rowlatt said that he asked for no indulgence, but a right.—The Magistrate said it was an indulgence to grant an adjournment. Case dismissed. Monday, April 8. Robert Aitken v. George Garth and Walter Mormngton.—Claim, £32 Is. Judgment confessed, and order made that the amount be -paid by instalments of £1 ss. per month—the first payment on the Bth May, and so on from month to month until the whole amount be paid.

Thursday, Apbil 11. Aitken v. Fruenr.—Claim, £7 13s. There being no proof of (service the case was struck out.

Jaggars' v. Franks.—Claim, £ls 15s. £5 183. was paid into Court. Judgment with consent, for the amount paid into. Court. Hunter v. Dillon.—Claim, £5 Is. 6d , rent of premises. In this case £4 Bs. was paid into Court, an-J judgment by consent for that amount was recorded.