RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Manawatu Times, Volume III, Issue 51, 2 July 1879, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thuesdat, Juxe 26j 1879. [Before Robert Waed, Ec^.~ ft,li,3 ; GBIMHTI^ OASES. / ' "Wi Mahuri was charged by Constable Gillespia with a breach of the Palmerston; Bye-laws, by leaving h^s dray m the public steeet. Defendant admitted' the charge, and was fined fire shillings. OITII, CASEB. King Bros. v. Alzdorf;— -Claim, £6 fa. Bd. This was a judgment summons, apd the defendant not; appearing, an order was made that "if pot paid within -a fortnight, hebe committed to "V^apgariui G^ao'J. fpr fourteen dajs. ;; ' ■ ' ;■■■ ■■.-■■' : - ■■'■ .._-,■ ■--■ Robert Mackie v. Peter Gtrey.-^Olatni £3 V7b] Bd. for meat supplied. jThe defendant did pot appear for fche r v«a's6n that he is at present undergoing a sentence ..of five months' imprisonment in= ; the^. Wangauui Gaol, and judgment was given m default. Robert Mackie" : ;v.. George Davey. —^Claim | £j.\195. ." Judgiijifot ; for plaintiff, witlx £2, \ 9s. costs. • ; ' ! •George Symons v. E. Polling— CJaim, £2 10s, for work and labor done.- The defendant paid £2 into Court, and a verdict wa3 given for thajj amounjt; and costs. ;. >. . -...i Charles Eihgti, Peter Brown'.— Claiov £25. Adjourned for one*week. . ! r William Deajds v> Q-eorge ; Enpwles .— .! Claim £?, 13s. sd. Judgement for plaintiff, with £1 6s, costs. V ; ; " ,'■ Henry Shaerin y. 8. J. Podevih;^-Claim - £3 15s. PlftiptifE nonsuited with £1 93. costs. -^ .-, , • Thomas Moffatt v. Edward Turner. — CJaiai, £20, for alleged damages to sheep eoniniitted by defendant's ldog.> The case was heard at some length, Mr. Maclean Rppeacing for plaintiff arid Mr. Staite for thg defendant, jr^dgment given jfor: £10 arid casts. ":-■'■ '": '•■ :.'. "■-;.;■ "''^Or /.-■;.■'::;; Edward Marsh t. George Aitken.r^Claimj £33 i 14s.> f oj?-' goods, supplied • to ; James Gardner; ; This -was a case partly head on the -"last"- Court day, plainti|f , being represented by. Mr. Staite 1 ; and disfencTant. by "Mr. Maclean.' V Counsel for plaintiff v made a somewhat clej.» r point-in support;of the claim, arguing that by novation all resppns'ir bility had been transferred from Gardner— to whom the' goods were suppliad-rto def fendant: ' ; ' ilnv giving judgment, Mr^Wavclf read from " Pollqck pn Principle of ' Contracts," which sho wiedj that" when acreditpr assented, at, the debtor's. ; riequesji, tg accept another ppraoii as his debto* m place 1 ef the firstr that was galled novation ; vrhether there had been a novatip^ii an^ particular \case was. .-a quo3tipjti of faet^ but ailserifc to a novation was'riotf^to be^iriferreaifiiom conduct, nnless v there had been' a^distinct and* unambigubu* request. -Tt.e c^tiestion'to be; determined " m the v case under consideration wa8 — Was this a,;question of- novation pr one of guaranty ? It appeared v to 'Hiaj.^haf; request to the creditor, by, the iosigiiyil debtor to accept/'anbther m stead,^yas an element 'in novation,, as was also the assent of the creditor thereto. '■: It also ieeemed. that unlese there had. been a distinct qnd clear .reqnest, ancassent wasndt -to be-in-; f erred . In the oase under decision he; failed to see that there had been any request by the original debtor, Gardner, the -tweount m plaintiff's books' appearing to be headed --V Gardner & -Co. per Aitken:" Plaintiffs seemod to have had many cbiiyersations with defendant as tb'th'e acco'unti indicatinfi an anxiety about, it, : as if its safety^wa*: effected by Gardner & Cof /From that it seemed hardly reaaonabletbat if the no- ; vatibn had taken .place that that anxiety ahbuld be shown, or that it should hate e±iste« a* *&■'* had $»*;• substitutibn aotually ; taken pfece^ the risk caused by -the-, men wpuld -be .AitkehV,. and not Marsh's. With regard to ,the;order signed by Q-arrde-' ncr, there was no evidence m support '6i"the ! hypothesis that m the ininds of Garclnier: and Marsh at the time the order was ' given the debt was Gardner's ; or why the order al all, for had '. the debt'been>A4tken's;,Tthe order would he quite unnecessary. There- ■ fore he had come to the /oqriclnsibri thatit was : : not a. case of|npvstipn,.but thiaVif the promises had been made by Aitken, they must have been m tht nature b.f a guarantee, and as "they) w^re' not m >writing, they would not be binding, on him. ' The plaintiff' must "therefore 'hb'^npn-iiuited, with COStS.;;. ... -,;„.,,,.; ■'''.■/;■ }„\: ■■':■".;'■-'