RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Issue 1192, 7 January 1870, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, 4tii January, 18/0. Eose y. Smyth.— A. J. Smyth appeared to answer a charge of having used threatening language to K. Eose a day or two previously. Defendant acknowledged that he had done so, but pleaded provocation. He explained that a dispute arose in connection with a business transaction between himself and plaintiff, by which he was much annoyed, the result being the commission of the alleged offence. The Bench inflicted a fine of £2 and costs. Lofttjs y. Cayanagh. — J.Loftus suea W. Cavanagh for the recovery of £20, Paid to have been advanced by plaintiff to defendant some years ago for a specific purpose, but which had never been carried out, nor tLe money accounted for. The evidence of both parties was taken, and • was very contradictory. It appeared that in 1865 plaintiff had paid to defendant in •Dunedin the sum claimed, on account of two years' rent of some land in this province, plaintiff having it in contemplation to remove to the locality shortly thereafter. Defendant was himself the lessee of the land in question, and declared he had merely promised plaintiff a sub-lease of the half of it at the terms on which he himself held it. After paying several years' rent, he had found, upon inspection the ground so valueless that he preferred relinquishing the lease, and did so, in which relinquishment, he averred, plaintiff coincided at the time. Shortly thereafter plaintiff came to Southland, and in consequence, it was alleged, of some family quarrel, the two being related, Loftus raised a claim for the £20, at the same time offering to forego the same on condition of Cavanagh making over to him, at cost price, free of expense, a quantity of land he (Cavanagh) had just purchased. This arrangement was ultimately carried out, with the additional condition that the land was conveyed to Mrs Loftus, Cavanagh's sister. After these transactions, however, it appeared that Loftus had failed to provide properly for the maintenance of his wife, indeed so far neglected his duty in that respect that the authorities were applied to by her relatives, and he was prosecuted on the subject, and hence, it was implied, the present action. Plaintiff swore that the £20 was never mentioned in connection with the bargain about the land made over to his wife. Defendant swore it was, and produced a witness who overheard the conversation. The Bench gave judgment for defendant with costs, £5 4s. Mr Macdonald and Mr Harvey appeared for the nlaintiff and defendant respectively. T. "Walsh y. P. Hogan. — This was an action to recover the sum of £17, value of a mare alleged to have been destroyed oy defendant. From the evidence it appeared that some time previously plaintiff was on his way up-country, riding the mare in question, and had dismounted on the roadside to rest a while. While- lying on the grass, the animal feeding beside him, defendant -came^ttpf stated tbafr'he-was out looking after some horses which were straying, that his feet were very sore, and ended by asking the loan of the mare for a few minutes to 'ride on ahead a little, as he had heard his horses were not far off. After demurring a while, plaintiff consented, and allowed Hoganto mount and ride off with the mare. Instead, however, of returning in a few minutes, he did not come back for several hours, and then the mare was in such a state as to be unable for further work, having suffered what is called a"■ founder." Defendant tried to make it appear that he had not overridden the mate, and that she was always subject to lameness after a smart gallop. It was, however, proven that Hogan had ridden a long distance during the time the animal was in his possession, having made a detour of five miles to pass through Boslin Bush, and thence into town. A number of witnesses were produced, who deposed to having seen defendant flying along at a terrific rate, the poor mare covered with foam and laboring heavily— oneimagined something desperate had occurred, and that a doctor was being sent fcr in hot haste, so furious was the courier's pace. The Court gave judgment for the plaintiff for £13, with costs, £6 17s. Mr "Wade appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Eussell for defendant. Eose y. Smyth. — Action for £25, value of piano sold to plaintiff' by defendant and not delivered, and £2 damages for detention of same. Defendant stated that at the time he made the sale, plaintiff was aware that some hindrances were in the way of an immediate delivery of tie instrument, that he had not been able to get possession of the piano himself at once, although he had paid for it, and that he was willing to return Mtj Bosehis money. Judgment for plaintiff for £25, without costs.

Thtjbsday, 6th Jasttaby. Boene v. C. N. Campbell.— Claim for £7 10s, goods supplied. Judgment for plaintiff, ■with costs, 14s. Eekton t. Babb. — Claim for £62 10s, arrears of rent. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs, £2 19s. Mr Macdonald for plaintiff and Mr Eussell for defendant. Sangsteb v. Mosgaw. — Claim for £23 10s, balance of wages. This was a complicated case, occupying the Court for a long time. Defendant pleaded an agreement with plaintiff to purchase his (defendant's) stock-in-trade, the moneybeing retained as part payment. Plaintiff denied any such agreement. Mr Macdonald appeared for Sangster, and Mr Wade for Morgan. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £20 10s., with costs, £3 7s. Waddell t. Stuck. — Claim for £41, balance of wages for work done, and value of tools wrongfully detained by defendant. Mr Wade appeared on behalf of Waddell and Mr Macdonald for Stuck. Prom the evidence it appeared that plaintiff undertook to build a house for defendant at Otaitea Bush, that he worked at it for a length of time, and then left for another job. He denied that he undertook to

build the house for any stipulated sum. Defendent pleaded that he had entered into a contract with plaintiff for the work, that the contract had been written out on the back of the specifications, but had never been signed, as plaintiff asserted his word was sufficient for such a small job. The work was to be done for £13 10s, plaintiff finding himself. He had not interfered with or overlooked plaintiff in the execution of the work with regard to the time he was taking. Plaintiff had not worked regularly ; had come and gone without asking defendant's permission, and spun the job out about some seventeen weeks, for which he now claimed current wages. Defendant was agreeable to pay the amount stipulated ia their agreement, when the work was finished. He had already paid money on account, and had a claim for board. After a very lengthy hearing, judgment was given for plaintiff for the value of the tools only, value to be fixed by competent persons at Eiverton.