RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume IV, Issue 43, 18 January 1884, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

- Thursday, January , 17.

(Before & Ward, Esq., R.M.)

(Continuation, of Report.) CIVIXi' CASKS..

Brewery Co. v. A. Eng.— Claim £6. Mr Perkins for plaintiff: Judgment for plaintiff for Mi 10s and 1 costs 12s ; witness' expenses 17?. Warbui'tpn, ,v. K^erbert.^ Claim £4 15s '6d/ J *Mr~ Perkins, for plaintiff, asked. tbiifc the case be adj6urn«d> as he had received a telegram stating the money had been posted. - C. W. Robert v. Bradley.— Claim £2 19s<9d. •-...:t:-. .. ■■■' '•'•■-': ■ ■ /' r '' l:- ---. 3 udff menti for amount and • costs. ; . On W. Russell v. ■■■%■ Goodison. — Claim £11 8a for advertising im poundling notices.. ., . . „ , -:, . ; '■ Mr Prior s 'for' defendant, who contended that- an arrangement had been entered- into-by whtoh hewas to receive one third^ off by discount. 1 This the pJairitiiF denied. v In .cross-examination, the plaintiff denied that he made any arrangement with, the defendant by which the name understanding was to be continued as existed between the .defendant, and the ,late Mi; Dungan, m regard to allowjance of discount. He; admitted that defendant had mentioned thi*, but ho had. inspoeted the late Mr Dnngan's ! books, r.an]d .had found that defendant l)ad not paid anything whatever. Cciv itain other,; evidence, the, Court, held iwould not be admissible. | The R.[M; held ;that :fthe: weight of •evidence , ,wa^ m favar of plaintiff, for iwhom judgment was-given for amount :and costs." * . ••• m '. ' - ■/.'."■ ■ J. Manson.t-jV. J. Sorenson. Mr Baker for plaintiff and Mr Prior for defendant.:, ; ;: -<; i • • I This was a case which had been 'heard before, but m which an appHcution lor re-hearing had been granted last Court Day. " ; "- 1 • ; " Certain evidence which was sought jto be introduced. by Mr Prior was objected to by Mi Baker on the grounds thaj; it. could haVe been produced when ithft. case -was: beard -beforfi.) . • ■>'- - Considerable idisoussion; f to6k plaJoef between, counsel*, upon the points of law involved) and ultimately ■ judgment was giveu for defendant, leave to appeal being granted. ."■ : - Perkins v* &S. Thynne. Claim £8 !113,8d. . , ,'-,. :, ..■ v ; > ;:■•' -■•• Mr Hawkins for plaintiff and Mr Hankins for defendant. • .. ;•■>-. This was a claim for costs m H. Brown's estate. .: Plaintiff.!. gave .evidence; as to his mafcing a/demand for settlement. A dissolution of partnership m the firm of which defendant was formerly ia partner had taken place, by the terms of^which Mr Th'ynne had underlaken 4 to pay all debts due by the firm. [Defendant did riotxlisp'ute the account iwlien first : presented. ' Mr Linton afterwards disclaimed personal liability m consequence of dissolution 6f partnerA i professional opinion had been given statfngfgenerally that Mr Linton !had promised) a settlement. "Htfhadsirice aqked. Mr Thynne for a settle- ; menti [as he understood Mr Libtoh was about going to Australia. 4 ; In cross-examination plaintiff! said he' jhe-knew-.no otherji-arty m the transaction but Tliyime Linton 'and Co. !Fir.st rendered the account to Mr Tbynne -m September TB*U. After' seeing Mr Thynne on the matter. rendered the'account to Mr W. Gr. Robin soni whom and defendant he had.seanj |two or three times about the account. ■' Received a letter (December 188) jTrom. Thynne Linton and Cd;/ repudiating the account. , : , Mr Linton • gave' ovWence ; remem - bered.iMr iJPeikinx telling him to be gure-and send the bankruptcy advertisement to Wanganui at once as the ifanawalu Times would nofc be issued

till Saturday morning. After some further evidence had been given, the Oo'irt gave judgment for plaintiff for amount and i-o*ts.