RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1125, 24 July 1883, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka— Monday, July 23, 1883.

[Before S. D. Barker, and J. Talbot, Esqrs., J.P's.] CIVIL CASEB.

Property Tax Commissioner v. J P Wilson—Claim £4 15s lOd. Mr White appeared for the plaintiff. Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs.

F Franks v D Heffernan—Claim £1 10s.

Mr Aspinall appeared for the defendant, and the case was adjourned on the ground that the defendant had not received the summons in time to prepare a defence. F Franks v Mrs Peattie—Claim £8 16s Id.

Judgment was given for £6 lis, the balance having been paid since the issu e of the summons.

Craig v J Daly—Claim £ll lis. Judgment by consent, the defendant to pay £4 on the 4th August, and the balance in instalments of 10s per week. H Brosnalun v O Fredericks—Gain £2 8s 6d.

Judgment by default for the amount claimed aDd costs.

H Brosnahan v A Fergusson—Claim £5 16s 6d.

Judgment for £1 18s. P Coira vES Pearson. Adjourned to August 6th. Proprietor Temuka Loader r F lnnesa —Claim £2.

Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs. Niehol Bro v John Dean—Claim £B. Mr Aspinall appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr White for defendant. In this case the defendant, who lives in Geraldine, sent down to the plaintiffs a gun to be repaired; The defendants forwarded the gun to be repaired to Dunediri, where a charge of £7 10a was made. The balance was charged for carriage, etc. The defence was that the charge was too high, and the defendant paid £5 into court in satisfaction of the claim. The defendant gave evidence to the effect that he ordered the gun to be repaired whatever it would cost in reason, and the defendant's son stated that the plaintiffs told him the repairing of the gun would cost only between £3 10s and £4. Mr White raised the point, that as the plaintiffs had no license to deal in arms, they could not recover, as either to mend or sell firearms was a misdemeanor.

Mr Aspinall that the fact that defendant paid money into court, was an admission of his liability. He also pointed out that the plaintiffs did not come under the Arms Act as they did not mend the gun themselves, they having forwarded it to one duly licensed to do so. The Bench gave judgment for the full amount claimed and costs, including solicitor's fee, on the ground that it was charged by the Dunedin gunsmith, that there was no agreement as to what it would cost, and that Mr Dean had admitted that he ordered the gun to be repaired whatever it would cost within reason The Court then rose.