MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2677, 18 October 1881, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMARU—THIS DAY, [Before R. Beetham, Esq., R.M.] LUNACY. Patrick Baxter, who had previously spent some time in the Dunedin Lunatic Asylum, was charged with being of unsound mind. He had given himself up as a vagrant. He was remanded for further medical examination. CIVIL CASES. Judgment was given in the case Armitage v. Gosling, in which claim was made for £SB 13s 3d, for damage sustained through breach of a contrat to depasture sheep, and through careless driving of the sheep. Judgment was for plaintiff, with costs £7, damages being assessed at £lO. Mr Hamersley, solicitor for the defendant in a case that had been withdrawn by the plaintiff, applied for defendant’s costs on the ground that the notice of withdrawal had only been given late on the previous day, too late to prevent the defendant and a witness being put to the trouble of attending the Court. His Worship considered the ground of the request quite sufficient, and allowed the costs applied for. McFadgin v. Chapman—-Claim £4, for wages. Mr Tosswill for plaintiff and Mr Reid for defendant. £2 10s was admitted to be due, but defendant disputed £1 10s, claiming that a week’s wages should be deducted in lieu of notice to leave, but the evidence of an independent witness showed that the defendant had given plaintiff permission to leave without notice. Judgment was given for plaintiff for the full amouut, with costs, £3 3s, and solicitor’s fee, £1 Is. Webb and Penny v. F. W. Stubbs— Claim £3.

Dr Foster for plaintiffs and Mr Hamersloy for defendant. This was a case in which the plaintiffs sued upon an 1.0. U., dated July last, the only consideration for which was a debt of about £7O, incurred previous to June, 1878, when defendant obtained an order of discharge in bankruptcy, and the question was whether the order barred all claim for the previous debt, when, as in this case, it had been apparently revived by the 1.0. U. Counsel on both sides argued the question at considerable length. Dr Foster argued that a debt was «, relation between two parties, and not simply a sum of money; that the moral obligation, to pay was not removed by bankruptcy, the Statute merely barring the use of legal means for the recovery of the debt, and that a debt provable in bankruptcy proceedings might be revived after the granting of an order of discharge. His Worship said the question was an important one, and reserved his decision. The Court then adjourned.