MAGISTRATES' COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XV, Issue 36, 11 February 1880, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURT.

[Before C. Hunter Brown, J. Sclanders, aud P. Donald, Esqs., J J.P.] Peter Gorrie was charged with maliciously injuring property belonging to A. Kruse. Mr Bunny appeared for the complainant, and Mr Percy Adams for the defendant. This caae arose out of a neighbors' quarrel. Kruse stated tbat Gorrie was in his yard at the Temperance Boarding House in Waimeastreet, and used insulting language to his wife, whereupon he " used a little English " to him. Gorrie then said that he would be even with him at night, and in the evening he cut down his clothes line, causiDg all the clothes to fall to the ground. The defence was that the clothes line post was on Gorrie'a land, but defendant admitted that he had permitted Kruse to use the post on condition that he pnt up a prop to it. This he did, but it was not strong enough, and it was the prop he had cut down. The Bench reserved judgment until hearing the next case, in which Adolph Kruse was charged with using threatening language to Peter Gorrie. Mr Percy Adams, in opening the case, stated that the defendant was constantly in the habit of using abusive and threatening lan guage to the complainant, and that it certainly must end in a breach of the peace unless stopped. At the close of the complainant's evidence the chairman stated that it was unnecessary to proceed any further with the case, as the Bench had decided to dismiss both the cases, in the hope that each party having to pay their own costs would be a caution to them to refrain from such quarrels in future, as if they came before the Court again they would have to be bound over to keep the peace. Johnston and Mackay (Gouland's Trustees) v. Siggelkow. — Action to recover £16, amount of interest due. Mr Percy Adams appeared for the plaintiffs, for whom judgment was given with costs. HjMickell v. Price.— -Action to recover £4, balance of promissory note. Judgment for amout claimed, and costs. Mr Percy Adams appeared for the plaintiff. Nicholson v. Sharp & Pickering.--This case had been adjourned from the 14th of January, for the purpose of obtaining the evidence o| $v gbßrp, Mr Pitt appeared

for the plaintiff, and Mr Acton Adams for the defendants. John Sharp : We were to sell the whole of the Nicholsons' property, the commission to be 1\ per cent on stock, and one per cent on land, the latter rate being accepted on condition that tbe commission was to be paid to the defendants on the whole of the sales by whomsoever they might be effected. Sales of over £1000 each were made to Painter and Lelghton by the Nicholsons, but they paid Us commission ou tfaerii. The properties were advertised in both the local papers. Our instructions were to sell tho 400 acres for £7 10s per acre. I tried to negotiate with Dr Renwick, but he would nofc look at ifc afc the price although ifc was in the middle of his own property. I think I might have sold afc the price paid by Fowler, about £2009, but had received no instructions to lower tbe price. The property had been advertised in our column for about 18 moiitiis. ! , 2 Cross-examined: The Nicholsons paid Commission on all the stock they themselves bought in, also bn Leighton's and Painter's purchasers. After Woodstock was sold, I might hay. told.Nicholson the advertisement tiilgbt _.mai_ vyithout his paying iot ifc. This closed the case for the defence^ Counsel having addressed the Rench, judgment was given for the plaintiff tor tho amount claimed and costs, £2 1 6s.