RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1169, 3 November 1883, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Geraldine—Thursday, Nov. 1, 1883. (Before H. C. Baddely, Esq., R.M., Dr Fish and Captain Temple, J.P.'s.) / DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. A first offender was fined ss, with the usual alternative of 24 hours' imprisonment. CIVIL CASES. Geraldine Road Board, per C. E. * Sherratt, rate collector, v William Cameron —Claim ss, for rate due, Judgment by default for amount and costs.

Same v Kenneth Camerom—Claim ss, for rate due. Judgment by default for claim and costs. Same v James Walker—Claim 3s.

Defendant stated that he had parted with the property on which the rate was charged some time since, and had informed the rate collector of this about twelve months since.

Mr Sherratt stated to the Bench that the defendant had not availed liimself of the opportunity afforded him of objecting to his name appearing on the roll for the property in question. Judgment for amount claimed with costs.

Same v John Roberts—Claim 3s, for rate.

Judgment for amount claimed with costs.

C. Trengrove v J. P. Wilson Mr J. Y. Ward, as agent for Messrs Priest and to whom the tiooks of the plaintiff had been assigned, not producing a written authority from ithem to appear on their behalf to coi> ■duct the case, Mr White, at Mr Ward's irequest, did so. Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs:

J. Tasker and Co v. Robert Nicholls —Claim LU 14s lOd.

Mr White for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff with costs. Same v, James Tathan—Claim LlO 2s 7d.

Mr White appeared for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with costs. f

Same v. J. P. Wilson—Claim L 8 4s '4d.

• Mr White appeared for. plaintiff and Dr Foster for defendant.

On the application of Dr Foster this case was adjourned till next Court day. Robert Bennett v. John PatrickClaim Ll2 12s, Mr White appeared for plaintiff. Defendant had filed, a set-off for horse hire amounting to L 5 9s. From the evidence of plaintiff and a witness it appeared that the horse was lent to the former. The Sench took this view of,the matter, and disallowed the set off -»s it was evidently an after-4hought. , Judgment was given for plaintiff with costs.

Samuel Breadley v. Langdon— Claim L 8 4b 6d. Mr White for plaintiff and Dr Foster for defendant. Samuel Breadley deposed : 1 am suing 'defendant for,rent of shop at btaiifrom 13th March to 30th June *qu»l to fifteen weeks.and four days at -6s per week, to b« paid weekly. I have applied't* him on several occasions for payment, but defendant said he, was Wrd up, but would pay when he could. The rest of the account is for refreshment? supplied. Defendant deposed : On 14th Mercb last I saw plaintiff, and asked him how about the shop. Plaintiff replied ' Oh, never mind just know, wait till we arp pHtled down.' Plaintiff took possession of the hotel on the day previous. On April sth plaintiff called me in and we

had a conYersation relating to the shop. We then agreed that it should be at, the rate of 6s per week, and I believed it was to be charged from that date and not from March 13th. On June 18th a party named Robertson came and asked me for the key of the shop and worked in it about a fortnight after. I did not use it for working in after the 18th June. I kept my tools in it after that date. The key was hung up by Robertson behind the bar. When he had finished using it he gave it torn). He (plaintiff) went to Oamaru ou the same day, and took the key with him, hut brought it back on the Monday following. I occupied the shop for two or three yearß before, but had never been charged rent either by Mr Wadsworth or Mr Brosnahan.

James Robertson deposed that he occupied the shop whilst doing some work for plaintiff, and when finished he gave the key up to defendant. By the Court: When I finished ray work the defendant ssked me to give the key up to him. The Bench, in giving judgment, remarked that defendant should have seen that the key was given up by last witness to the plaintiff. Judgment would be recorded for L 4 Is 4d as amount dne for rent, with costs and solicitor's fee Ll Is. They would not allow for the drinks.

James Robertson v. Samuel Breadley —Claim L 93 19s 6d. A set-off of LB2 17s 6d had been filed in Court.

Dr Foster appeared for plaintiff and Mr White for defendant.

James Robertson deposed that he was a builder and entered into a contract in July last to build a verandah outside the Orari hotel. There was only one copy of contract written out, which was kept by defendant. He performed his contract, which was completed according to specification. (The witness then went through the account, on which the claim was made, some ot the items being disputed by defendant.) When he gave defendant his account he agreed to every item except one, winch he remarked was rather stiff, He never said anything till in the Court that the contract was not finished. Defendant was always about the place. Cross-examined by Mr White : Had been a builder for 20 years, Langdon deposed that he had been working on the contract with plaintiff and was satisfied the work was properly done. He heard defendant three or four times say he was easily satisfied. Sad never heard him say either directly or indirectly that he was dissatisfied.

Dr Foster, in reference to the defendant's set-off, stated his client admitted the money lent, amounting to about L 5 5s ; also the charge for board, and LB9 paid for timber. The balance L 27 12s 6d was for drinks supplied. This amount represented about 1000 glasses, drank during two-and-a-half months. He considered this was out of all reason. His client, and Langdon, who had been working for him, had kept their own tally of drinks had by them. Their tally was L 5 Od 6d, and Ll 3 10s Gd for the two from July 19th to September 12th. Admitting that to be reasonable he would ask the Bench to tax the bill during that period. He was ready to come to an arrangement of the accounts with his learned friend. Mr White, if he were so disposed. Mr White agreed to his proposal and the Bench adjourned the Court for a quarter of an hour for the purpose. On the Court reassembling it was stated that an understanding had been arrived at between the parties concerned and the case had therefore been withdrawn.

There being no further cases the Court then rose.