RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume VIII, Issue 267, 6 November 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

; [Before L. Broad Esq., R.M/J ..<■ Edwards v Thomas and another. \ ; This was an action to recover the suttf of £75 11s 6d, the particulars of the claim being aa follows : — , To amount paid by plaintiff to jE s. d. defendant on agreement for r!l ••"'"-' purchase of sheep, dated May 10, J 873 ..:"' ... £o ;J 00 less price of 553 sheep; delivered .. by defendants to plaintiff on : , - • acconnt of purchase, at 4s 6d w ' per head .., . ... 124 8 6 Balance overpaid by plaintiff „*, : . 75, 116 Mr Acton Adam 3 appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Pitt for the 1 Mr Pitt objected to the jurisdiction of the Court in this matter on the ground that plaintiff was not entitled to reduce, bis claim lor £200 by a set off which/ he'; might choose to allow the defendants. Me Acton Adams contended that the Court had jurisdiction, and put io as evidence, the record >in the late action of. Thomas v Edwards heard ju the Supreme Court to prove that the set off had been, admitted by the defendant and that there-?' fore the plaintiff had properly credit for it. , •■ : •... „. . . His .. Wprß'uip,. without pvonou'fccing whether the set-off for which credit was given bad been 'admitted by the defendants,'decided, on the authority of Hepburn v. ffisherCtfo.lyJfJacassey's New Zealand Reports, and the cases referred to therein, that although the plaintiff might give credit in' his particulars, for payments on account^ yet:when the credit was in the nature of V set-off, ne could not do. 'so. The plaintiff's original claim for £200 was not admitted by the r defendatits, therefore the Court would have first to investigate the claim, which : was beyond ita jurisdiction. He 9 ! therefore, on the whole, decided in favor of the objection against the jurisdiction of the Court. ; „ Mary Bedford, charged' with habitiiaidrunkenness, was ..eentenced, to three months' imprisonment. () j r P i\ ' i; ■> ■