MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2745, 10 January 1882, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

riMARtJ—THIB DAY. (Before R. Beetham, Esq., R.M.,) • Civil Oases. , , Stonyer v. Leach—Claim £l2 12s, 6d. Tne evidence in this case had . been taken on a previous Court day, and the case then adjourned for argument upon a question of set off. . s . Mr Hamersley for plaintiff, Mr White for defendant. , •• - .After.argument to-day His Worship advised; the withdrawal of the set-off, holding that the claim was properly one for damages/ and Mr White agreeing, judgment was given for defendant, the money to ■be paid into Court within three days, there to remain until, the defendant’s claim for damages is heard in the District Court. County of Geraldine Penrianent Building arid Investirient v. JV Stevenson..:

Mr Beid (for Mr Austin) applied for leave to enter plaint to eject a tenant in unlawful of premises over £2O of annual value. Application granted. Judgment by default was'given'Hu the,following,cases:, Trustees ip. Stop.pellieiii’s estate V. Wbitford, claim/£;2, costs 7s ; Davies and Murphy v. T. McGrath, claim, £2 1653 d,. costs, -7s. Judgment by consent was given in the'case of G; Shepherd v. E., Hope,' claim, £6 Gs 2d, costs lls. Three cases were • struck out, there being no appeaifande of either party. Qamersley v. Hope, claim £29 18s 2d, less £ls 7s 6d taxed off, judgment summons. ■

Mr BJbid, for plaintiff, examined the defendant ns to her present means, and monetary transactions since.the obtaining of thejudgmemt. Mrs Hope said she had not now a sixpence. She had received £IOO op an. insurance policy, bat had paid it away immediately.in the settlement-of -old accounts. She: had raised £SOO on mortgage of ten acres of land au LeCren’s gully, to pay off another mortgage 2 and had been obliged to give the equity of redemption to settle a debt of £SO. She had tried to sell the land, but could not get the amount of the mortgage pa it. She did not knpw when sbp received the. £IOO that Mr Hamersley’s : bill had been taxed. ’ She had nothing else to .ILv.e. on since .-September, andhad- seven children to keep. She had not been in treaty for a business since the judgment. ■Had pne’offered toher inDunedm.but havingno modey'was unable to take it. Had a' claim for £4OO ajainSt the Insurance Company which was dis puted, at least in, part. Expected she would have.to sue for it, but had no money to sue with. Defendant was ordered to pay £1 per; week, the; first payment to be made on the 17th inst, in default of any pay-, thent one month’s imprisonment. Hamilton and another v. Maclean and Stewart —Claim £43 18s 6d. Mr Beid for plaintiffs and' Mr Hamersley for defendants. Plaintiffs are nurserymen at Carlton, Christchurch, and had .consigned trees to defendants on instructions, of one Malcolm, whose authority to order them was denied by defendants; The . first lot of trees was’paid for by a £SO cheque of Maclean and' Stewart’s, and plaintiffs 1 took that as a ’proof of Malcolm’s hoiufides. Plaintiffs bought goods' at auction from Maclean and Stewart, and were not asked forpaymept for them, and the plaintiffs considered; this another proof that the defendants were principals and held themselves responsible for the greater amount due for trees consigned. '. J. French, foreman and bookkeeper tb plaintiffs, showed that in the day-book the trees were entered to Malcolm, and in the ledger “ more fully,” to Malcolin as agent for Maclean and Stewart. James Malcolm, nurseryman, now of Temuka, stated! that ho; agreed with plaintiffs to dispose of their surplus stock of trees, and Act as agent for theqi in Timaru, and advertised himsplf in the Tiinaru papers as their agent.. Plaintiffs sent him •trees down, and for his own convenience he had them, addressed to Macleau and Stewart, he putting them

in their hands for sale. The £SO cheque referred to he had sent himself in pay meat for trees sent down. , • Mr Beetham pointed out to Mr Reid that he had not proved the agency of Malcolm; andi Mr, Reid .asked; for a nonsuit. v White v. Yesburgh—Claim £o' Is lOd. Judgment for plaintiff with costs, 13s. - Same v. J. Younghusband—Claim £1 Is. _ ... Plaintiff’ nonsuited, on account of material error in account with costs £3 28 (5(1. ' E. Ball v. B. Jones—Claim £2 I4s6d, advertising. Judgment for defendant,, several “ settlements In full ” having been made between the parties since the claim was alleged to have occurred.