RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4309, 12 January 1875, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, January 11. (Before J. C. Crawford, Esq., R.M.) CIVIL CASES. Bank of New Zealand v. Chisholm.—Claim, £32. Defendant pleaded that he had made a deed of assignment for the benefit of his creditors, but as the deed had not been filed, his Worship gave a verdict for amount and costs. Tiller v. Hadfield.—Claim, £25 for erection of a fence in Woolcombe-Btreet. Mr. Allan appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. Ollivier for defendant. Plaintiff gave evidence to the effect that he erected the fence according to contract, with the exception of some " spurs," which the men in his employ were prevented from putting up by the plaintiff. Corroborative evidence was given to the effect that the contract was executed in a workmanlike manner, and that the sum charged was reasonable. The contention for the defence was that the contract was for a close boarded fence, and not a close paling fence, and this view was berne out by Mr. Haybittle, a next door neighbor, who had to bear half the cost, who stated that the fence was put up in a very unsubstantial manner, and was shaky, throughout. It would undoubtedly have to be done over again. Counsel having addressed the Bench, his Worship nonsuited the plaintiff with costs, to give, him an opportunity to complete the fence in a workmanlike manner. The costs amounted to £9 16s. . Duff v. Leonard.—Claim, £l4 18s. for hire of furniture. It seemed from the evidence of plaintiff that defendant hired furniture to'the value of £SO, which was to be paid for when he got money from England, but according to plaintiffs version the ship with the money " never came home," and he could obtain no satisfactory terms. Eventually plaintiff was compelled to take the furniture back upon the suggestion of the defendant that he should " take the rubbish away," as he (defendant) did not intend to pay for it. The articles were taken away, but they had been subjected to such rough handling that the sum claimed represented the depreciation after only three months' use. Mr. Travers endeavored to show that the sum charged was exorbitant, and that the version given by the plaintiff was incorrect, but the defendant when called upon did not appear. Judgment was given for the amount claimed and costs. Everest v. Hastwell.—Claim, £2B.for three months' toll over the Hutt bridge, defendant being proprietor of the Wairarapa line of coaches. Mr Travers appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. Buckley for the defendant. Mr. Buckley took the preliminary objection that the bill sent in by the plaintiff did not set out explicitly the particulars of demand as prescribed by the Act for regulating the.proceedings of Resident Magistrates' Courts. The case, he held, could not be proceeded with, as his Worship had no jurisdiction unless the forms of the Act were complied with. The bill sent to the defendant simply named a lump sum for each month's tolls, which did not satisfy the requirements of the Act. His Worship said he had a pretty good idea what the nature of the defence would be, and he could not see therefore that the argument on either sido would be affected by setting out the full particulars of.demand. There would be no harm, therefore, in adjourning the case for the purpose of allowing the particulars to be amended. Mr. Travers thought it would facilitate the business of the Court generally if his Worship would lay down a rule to the effect that where

a summons was served in sufficient time the parties who objected to the particulars should be bound to show in what way the particulars required amendment. In the Supreme Court no objection of the kind would hold good, unless notice were given before hand. It would be a very good rule, and one which his Worship had power to make. Mr. Buckley said such a rule would have had no effect in this case, because he did not receive the summons and particulars till that morning. His Worship adjourned the case for a fortnight, to permit of both parties having time to mature the argument on either side.