DISTRICT COURT.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2275, 2 July 1880, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

■ o TIMARIT—YESTERDAY. (Before His Honor’ Judge Ward.) His Honor gave Judgment for tire full amount claimed, and costs in Moore v. Marcroft, and judgment for £7O and costs in Marcroft v. Moore. The Court then adjourned. TBIARU—THIS DAY. The .sitting of this Court was resumed this morning. CIVIL CASKS. Proprietors of Point Store v. Thompson —Claim £B3 tis '.M. balance due nn account for goods delivered. Hr Au-din appmircd fur plaintiff ; Mr Hnmershjy for defendant. Air Ilamersley raised some ob jections as to informality, and on those grounds Mr Austin applied for an adjournment which was granted. Mundcll v. Kennedy, claim £3O ; for use and occupation of certain land. Mr White appeared for the plaintiff. All' Hamcrslcy for the defendant. The facts of this case, as stated for the plaintiff, were briefly that the defendant rented certain land from him at a rental of 8s an acre for the first and 12s an acre for the second year, on the understanding that the defendant was to sow the land in grass, plaintiff to find the seed. This it was alleged the plaintiff had never done. Defendant had thereupon purchased the seed himself, at a cost of 11s (kl per acre, and this amount lie now put in as a set-off against the amount of the claim. Wm. Kennedy, the defendant, gave evidence as to the set-off, and stated dial he had bought the seed, Mundcll Idling him (hat ho would settle wilh him again. He had never been paid his money. 'The seed cost 11s (Jd per acre to sow.

Leonard .ITart and Ale.v. MeLellan, farmers, residing near (ho parlies (olhe action, deposed that they knew the land in question, and that; during both years of the defendant’s tenancy, it was not worth more than 7s or Ss per acre.

.Mr White remarked that he should bring evidence to show that 12s was the rent of (he land demanded by the plaintiff from the defendant, and no promise had at any time been made by the plaintiff respecting a reduction in the rent. The defendant had found the place laid down in grass, and the understanding was that he was to leave it as he found it. He was to find the grass seed, lie would call John Mmidcil, the plaintiff, who deposed that the rent paid for the land for the first year by the defendant was 12s, and that he had never made any promise to take loss than that amount. By Mr llamersley—Had now got another tenant fur the land at ( Js an acre for 12 months. The agreement was not signed. Witness could swear positively that he had not stated at the Leraldinc It.M. Court that he had agreed to take Ss an aero for the land rented by the defendant. Counsel having addressed the Bench at some length, 1 lis Honor gave judgment for the plaintiff fur the amount claimed with costs. The setotf was withdrawn. IX IIAXKUWri Y. He Francis Hales, a debtor, Mr llamersley, on behalf of Mr Tusswill, applied for an order of discharge. The application was granted. new xeial. A new trial was granted in the case of .MeLcish v. Meek, on the ground of irregularity in the summoning of the jury. AI MOL* I! tori-: N'T. The Court then adjourned until July