RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1111, 29 May 1883, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka— Monday, May 28,1883.

[Before J- Beswick, Esq., R.M.] STRAY CATTLE. S Burrows was charged with having allowed 8 head of cattle belonging to him to wander on the railway. The defendant admitted the charge, stating that his boy was in charge of them, and that while he was bringing back one of the cows that strayed away the remainder wandered on the railway. His Worship said that in consideration of this, and that it was his first ofience, he would fine him only 20s. B. Darroch was charged with allowing a horse belonging to him to wander on the railway, and was fined 20s. James Bly.th was fined 20a for a similar offence. N. O. Nicholas, was charged withallowing two horses belonging to him to wander on the railway. As it was his first offence during the six years he had been living in the district he was let off with a fine of 20s, CIVIL CASES. John Cunard v. W. Eagleston—Claim £llls 4d. Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs

H. Hodgson v. W. Hayhurat—Claim 10s 6d. Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs.

W. Ackroyd v. Rogers—Claim £6 Is* The defendant had paid £2, and judgment was given for the balance. W. Ackroyd v. E. Pilbrow—Claim £l3 4s.

The defendant had paid £9, and judgment was given for the balance. A R. Kirk v. R. Lindsay—Claim £6 16s 6d,

Judgment confessed. J, Langskail v. F. Fowler —Claim £2 4s 6d,

Judgment by default. E. Forward v. J. Roddick —Claim £3 The amount was due for horse and dray hire. The defence was that the defendant was not supplied with a bill of particulars, that plaintiff promised he would not charge for broken weather, and that there (was lls 4d due to the defendant. Judgment was given for the full amount and costs. Dr Poster v. Temuka Butter, Cheese and Bacon-curing Factory Company, Limited —Claim £8 4a. Mr Aspinall appeared for the defence. Plaintiff said the amount was due to him for professional services rendered, To Mr Aspinall; There was no arrangement between myself and the Company except what appears in the documents i have supplied you with. I agreed to do all the work necessary to the registration. James Guild, Chairman of the Ditectors, sworn, stated that the agreement handed in in writing was not agreed to. It was afterwards agreed that the sum should be £7. Plaintiff was paid that sura. He kept attending the meetings and witness could not understand why he did so. He said that he bad made a mistake and they gave him £5 more than agreed upon. To Dr Foster: I never told you to come to the meetings. I told you there would be no payment for it. To the Court: I expected he would put the Company on a legal footing for the £7. Dr Foster said he had offered to do the work for £7, but found afterwards he made a mistake aboat the stamps and the Directors very kindly allowed him £5, The services for which he claimed were rendered subsequent to the registration of the Company, and were no part of the former contract. Dr Hayes gave evidence to the effect that he saw Dr Foster in Geraldine and received the letter produced from him stating that he (Dr Foster) was willing to register the Company for the amount he would bo out of pocket, the balance to be given him in shares. Mr Guild declined to agree to this as he wanted some definite sum stated. Dr Foster subsequently gave him a memorandum written in pencil in which he undertook to do: all the work connected with registering the company. All the work was to have been done for £7. Dr Foster : How long were you talking to me here in the Courthouse when I gave you the memorandum ? Witness : If I recollect rightly, I was talking to you about it for some time outside the Court. I do not remember anything being said about costs out of pocket. 1 understoo 1 the £7 was to include everything connected with registering the Company.

R. A. Barker, one of the Directors, stated that he was present when the £7 were passed for payment, and the additional £5 were passed. Dr Foster said he had made a mistake about £5 for stamps, aud the Directors paid him. Dr Foster said he Had no claim, but he left it to the Directors. They paid him the £5 as a gift.

To Dr Foster : I clearly understood that Dr Foster had been arranged with to put the Company on a legal footing for £7.

Joseph Ashwell. Secretary to the Company : Saw a memorandum in pencil that the work would be performed for £7. Could not remember the wording, but the sum was £7. Plaintiff received the £7 and also £5. (Receipts produced ) The doctor said that points might arise at the meetings whereby it would be necessary

for him to be present, and asked witness to give him notice. Witness gave notice of each meeting. He had never been instructed to do so. Hr Guild asked him why the doctor was always present, and witness said he had given him notice, Mr Guild told witness not to give Dr Foster notice any more. To Dr Foster : You advised me about getting books for registry of shareholders. I have got the book since. The memo, in pencil was the last time 1 saw it in Dr Hayes’ possession. To Mr Aspinall: I did not ask Dr Foster’s advice, because I did not know what was required,but he told me what was necessary. I thought he was telling me as part and parcel of the whole alfaiu Dr Foster said he had no claim to the £5, and Mr Guild said ‘ I suppose there are no more £s’s sticking out, doctor.’ Dr Foster said ‘ Oh no, that is all I ask you for.’ This having- completed the case Mr Aspinall pointed out that the original contract was that all the work would be done for £7, but that to cover a blunder made by Dr Foster the Directors, out of pure generosity, gave him £5. Some of the items on the plaintiff’s bill of particulars were certainly connected with registering the company. Ho asked for judgment for the defendants.

Dr Foster urged that the services had been rendered after the company had been registered and on this ground claimed judgment. His Worship gave judgment for the amount claimed and costs.

F. Storey v. F. Smith - Claim £7■ Mr Aspinall appeared for the plaintiff. In this case it appeared that the son of the defendant, who is under age, boarded in Mr Storey’s Hotel, and went away without paying for his board. On the ground that he was a minor and that his father was responsible for him, Mr Stoiey sued the defendant, who lives in Waimate for the amount chained. His Worship reserved decision in the The cases Mitchell v. Hoare Mitchell v. Cross were adjourned for a fortnight 1 . The Court then adjourned.