MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2462, 8 February 1881, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMAKU—THIS DAY,

[Before 11. Beetham Esq., R.M ] JUDGMHNT SUMMONS,

Shappere v Lucien Henry, balance owing £4 ss. To be paid in a week or 14 days’ imprisonment. CIVIL CASKS. Judgment by default was given in the following cases : : —Doak v W. Howley, £lO 3s Gd ; W. IT. Barnes v Fraser and another, £OB 11s ; Franks Bros, v E. Waters, £1 3s Od ; Same v J. Whitford, £1 0s Gd ; Hutton v, Coventry, £1 5s ; Trustees Murray’s Estate v S. Hamilton, £4 ; Same v E. Dye, £4 4s ; Austin v N. Murphy, £2B 0s Gd. Carter v Win. Osborne, £3 10s, one month’s rent of a house in William street.

Mr Hamorsley for plaintiff. Defendant admitted a fortnight’s rent. He had occupied the house for_ three months up to January 4, haring hired it by the month. On the date mentioned Osborne intimated on paying the rent that the house was too large, and he should have to leave it, but plaintiff sued for a month.

The Bench ruled that the house having been taken by the month the tenancy continued till the end of the month. Judgment for amount claimed and costs. „ ... . Eichbaum v. S. T. Stansell —Claim 275, value of a pane of glass destroyed by a dog fight. Defendant applied for a nonsuit. The plaintiff called Thomas Peace who staled that, he was walking \vith his dog when defendant came up with three dogs and started a canine squabble. Witness called his dog off, but defen. dant’s dog made a grab, and the other making a rush, the defendant’s pugilist made a back somersault and went through Mr Eichbaum’s window. Defendant—Who set my dog on ?

Witness—Yourself and Mr Stringer. Defendant— Myself ! Did not I try to prevent them fighting? Witness—On the contrary you let them fight. Henry Stringer’s version was that Peace’s dog began the row, knocked the defendant’s dog through Mr Eichbaum’s window and then sprang through himself. The Bench considered defendant and Peace equally culpable, and made an order for half the amount claimed, leaving plaintiff to recover the balance from Peace. Brownell v, Murphy,claim £43 8s 9d, balance of account for timber. Mr Reid tor plaintiff, and Mr Jameson for defendant.

Full particulars of demand not having been furnished, the case was adjourned for a week on payment of costs by plaintiff. Alex. Fyfe v. Donald Mitchell, claim £4 18s, for furniture. Mr Jameson for plaintiff, and Mr Hamerslev for defendant. The evidence shewed that a sum of £8 was due to Mitchell by J. W. Webb and that when Webb entered into partnership with Fyfe in April, 1880,he (Webb) agreed to repay Mitchell either in money or goods. This agree ment was made without the knowledge of Fyfe ; the goods now sued for were obtained from the firm, and Webb having retired from the partnership on June 14), 1880, Fyfe now sued for. the debt. ... Defendant in reply to questions said that he believed the arrangement with Webb was made after the partnership hut he could not recollect the date. Webb had become insolvent, hut de fendaut did not prove against the estate. Evidence was produced to shew that on Mrs Webb purchasing a perambula’tor Webb acknowledged that there was n balance still due to the defendant. Judgment was reserved. Same v. E. Mitchell, £6 18s Gd, balance due for repairing and furnishing a buggy. Mr Jameson for plaintiff,aud Mr Hamorsley for defendant. The work had been commenced by Webb, and was finished by Webb and Fyfe. Defendant stated that Webb before going into partnership owed him £8 odd and that when Webb filed he deducted the amount claimed and proved against the estate for £1 3s Bd. He also alleged that Fyfe had met him in the street and offered to give him a receipt in full for £2 Bs. • , The plaintiff stated that subsequent to the dissolution of partnership he paid some money for the repairs to the buggy to Mr Barrett. Judgment reserved. Same v. A. Ormsby £5 18s. Judgment reserved. The Court then adjourned.