RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 215, 28 August 1862, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wednesday, August 27in, 1862. i (aefore A. C. Strode, Esq . R.M.) Minor OrravoEs. Philip M'Cail wa, nned 20a. and costs for being drunk. Harriet Windovcr was once more brought up charged with vagrancy. She was sent to prison fur thwi mouths. _~ , # CIVIL CASES. default V' Lane'~Verdict for L 7 14s. in (hooper v. Aldcrson and Hill.—A claim for Ll9los on a dishonored acceptance; and another for L 4 10*. lor worK done. Verdict for each case by default. Tlfi'in'Ti V" ?«*£«*>»— The -plaintiff claimed Lib 10.3. balance due for board and lod.cii^, at L22s. a week. An order was made for the payment of 30s. Violet Nelson v. Jones—The plaintiff claimed k tu°r fooil '&c-> s«PPHed from the 3rd Nov. to tne4tn December—not to the defendant but to his son Henry Jones The son wa* ia paol at the time; and the plaintiff never saw him, but sbe took oat a summons against each, alleging: now that tlie defendant had several times proaiNe:l to pay the amount. The son had gone to the di- K in-5 i lie was 23 years old; and the defendant denied any liability or promise. The case was dismissed and 10* costs allowed to the defendant, and a witness, which they save to the poor box. Mr. Strode said that, as a boarding house keeper, it would be well for Mrs. kelson to remr-mbcr that no guarantee for the paymentof boaitlfor another, would be of real value unless it was given in writing. Duunv. Miik—Verdict for the amount claimed •US VS. '

Brown v. Mar.ro.—The claim of LI 14s. for board anl lodging was admitted, and the parties leit to agree as to time. K(-atin«r v. Barnes,—The plaintiff claimed L 2 ss. but did not apppoy. Ca*o dismissed. M'Leodandl Gibson v. Gordon and Rankine.— Claim for L 4 Be. appearance M'Landnasv. W. Fuller—Verdict by default, for Li 3, on a dishonored cheque Dorman v. Jones.- Claim for L 2. No appearance B. Smith v. Grccnlaw & Co.—This was a complicated case arising out of a dfspute on a building conw i ,Mr- IJ»rt*»na|'Pear«.-l for the plaintiff and Mr. Ward for the defendants Verdict for Ll2 and coststhe amount claimed bchi" US ' mSiJ.7 \\ n, :ivw*--The plaintiff claimed L 7 for medical attendance upon the defendant, from the 20th May to the 20th June, at the rate of 10s. a visit pach necesiiratinsa walk of nearly two uiilos. Ihe .lefendaut, who had met with a severe accident by amount ori^ualiy claimed; and lie noiv stated that tho plaintiff i, a .l agrwl, and tli>n refusal to acn^ tai'men rt\ The Pontiff denied U,i, ; and said that, because «f the defcndnaf* position, he hw\ mluced 1,« charge from Ll to loi. a v.Vit. The jMS'strate hdd that, considering all the circumfttences the ciiarge was exvessive. He knew precisely the distance which the plaintiff had to walk and he wnsidcrcd that 7«. fil. a visit would be an anapl,! rate of jwiymen*. Vervlict for Loss. ( rai- v. Sheuhwrd.—This was a claim for LI 14s. 5d afn^Ti s?Pl'! f V ()n tlie 6th June, the dissolution ot paitfieiKhtp between Merer*. Lyons and Dillon earry,mj on a bakery w «l .Hor« at Cavershlrn, w"S «N 9th the plaintiff entered on the bu*ines«. The detendant a-lniittcl receiving the brervl; his d'-fen.-e •ationolthechan^m partnership, he had paid r ' ?' , :, of 1C a»"n«nt claimed, to a brother of fcrf» ' i ''" '" th* Arc^G > to whom he had re-u----«K«T ? T payme,nt PWioasly, He had Lvon.V reSunt b?L£eT hatlleft thedty- Venifct forthe