RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT TEMUKA

Temuka Leader, Issue 280, 12 August 1880, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT TEMUKA

WedxNesday, Aug. 11th

Before F. Guinness, Esq., R.M

CIVIL CASES. The first case called was E. H. Elliot v. Wm. Hayhurst—Claim, LI Is G.l. No appearance oi defendant. This was a claim for beer supplied to defendant. The plaintiff stated lam a sewing machinist but I have a wholesale license for selling beer. I supplied beer for amount claimed to defendant, and no part of the same is paid. Judgment for amount claimed and costs.

Landridge v. Hornbrook—Claim L 33 Is 7d. No appearance of defendant This was a claim for throshiusf. Landridge, on being sworn, said : He thrashed grain for the defendant during last season ; the claim put in is for balance for same. No part of claim was paid. Judgment tor amount claimed and

Wilson and Sons v. Stanley—Ulaim L 6 10s 8d- No appearence of defendant. Judgment for amount claimed and costs.

T. Leston v. B. Liorlon—Claim L 3 Is 7d Mr Austin for defendant. The plaintiff on being sworn, stated : lam a storekeeper, living on Waitohi Flat. Defendant Riorden, who was in partnerner»hip with Quinn in a contract, came to my store on 2nd Jane, 1878, got certain goods named, amongst others, a bag of sugar, 31bs tobacco, 4 gallons beer, one pair socks, and other goods for which he has not paid. Mr Austin asked : was he sure it was not on a Sunday the goods were got ? Plaintiff said he was not sure ; he did not think so, but it might have been. He understood defendant and Quinn weie in partnership in a contract. Quinn had cleared out, and he considered he was entitled to sue the defendant as he got the goods, as he believed as a partner. Mr Austin asked if he was sure it was not on June 3oth the goods were bought Plaintiff said he was sure it was the 2nd. Mr Austin called Riordon, who, on being sworn, said : He never got a bag of sugar from Liston's on the 2nd June, 1878, for himself, and he never got any tobacco from Liston. He was not in p&itnership with Quinn. Believe the goods were got upon a Sunday. His Worship asked what were the terms of the agreement with Quinn. Defendaut said he merely agreed to give him a spell ; he might have had an understanding to receive a share of the piofits from the job, and he might have got some of the sugar, beer, and bread. He did not think he got any tobacco from Quinn, he got some from Geraldine. He could not swear thac he was not in partnership in the job. He did not think they would lose by the job, but thought they would make wages, might have had to pay paat of loss, Another witness corroborated the statement that the things were got on a Sunday. Mr Austm contended that, as it was clearly proved by the defendant and another witness, and ako partly admitted by plaintiff that the goods were got on a Sunday, he asked for these items to be struck out, if judgment was not given for his client for the whole. His Worship said he saw clearly that the case was a partnership one but it was not clearly proved to his satisfaction'that the goods were got on a Sunday. He would give judgment for plaintiff for L2 Is 4d, striking out the socks, which could not be a partnership transaction.

A Waddle v. J. Gammack —Claim L8 6 ! 17s. Mr Austin for plaintiff, and Mr White for defendant- Mr Austin asked that the case be adjourned for a week, as he had only had a ahort time to prepare the case. Adjournment granted with costs and. solicitors fee, L 3 3s,

Cleary y. Granger. Mr Hamttiersley for plaintff, and Mr White for defendant This was a claim: for L 5 for value of a ch»ff cutter ; LlO for'damages. A long discussion took place as to the value of work dene, and the hire of horses. Judgment given for L 4, value of the machine.