RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1125, 12 January 1884, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Geraldine—Thursday, Jan. 10, 1884

[Before H. C. Baddely, Esq., R.M., and Captain Temple, J. P.] CIVIL CASES. F. Newman v. J. Bull—Claim £l3 16s Id. Dr Foster appeared for plaintiff and Mr White for defendant. This case had been adjourned from Court day to enable defendant to produce his papers in connection with his filing his schedule in May, 1881, and also for plaintiffs witness, Mrs Newman, to give evidence, as <*he was the party who kept the books of the business. Mrs Nenman deposed that she was the wife of plaintiff. The eDtries in the book produced were made by her at her hus band's and bod'i directions. They are

blacksmiths. As the work was done they entered it on a slate, and at night she transferred the entries into a book. The account was quite correct. She had seen aDy amount of work £ done by her husband and son for defendant.

By Mr White: She sometimes took orders from defendant and his children. She was oot away from her home from December, 1881, to the last date named on the account.

Frederick Newman deposed that he was a blacksmith, and corroborated the statement made by the previous witness in regard to the mode of entering the work done by himself and his son during each day. He had done work for defendant for several years past. He could not tell from memory whether he did any work for him during the last month of 1881.

Cross-examined by Mr White ; During his examination last Court day he did not say he could not write, but tha this wife kept his books because she was a better writer than himself. He did not recollect saying anything about dates being wrong. The defendant carted some cords of firewood for him and also some coals and iron from the railway station. Ha did not pay him for doing so as he promised witness that it should go against some work he did for him in Timaru.

By the Court ; He swore positively as to the correctness of the dates of the account. He worked for defendant both before and after he filed. At the time defendant filed he owed witness about £4. The entries on the page in the bock were hot made all at the sama time, but on the different dates on which the work was done.

The Bench remarked that it appeared as though the entries on one page of the book before him were written at one time as they were so very uniform. George Newman, son of last witness and also a blacksmith, corroborated the evidence of the laßt and previous witnesess. During his examination the Bench remarked that evidently a mistake had been made in the date of the year in which part of the work had been done. For the defence, John Bull deposed that at the time of his riling in May, 1881, he owed plaintiff some £l2 or £l3. He was told that was the amount. He could neither read or write. The items credited co him of £5 and £3 were paid by him for work done since his bankruptcy. The Court awarded judgment for plaintiff for £4 15s 6d, deducting £9 0s 7d from the account as relating to work done prior to defendant's bankruptcy.

J. Dean v. G. Ward—Claim £1 8s 6d. As defendant did not appear, judgment was recorded in default for plaintiff. J. Davis v. Williams—Claim £3 18s 7d. Defendant only acknowledged part of the account as being due, and the Bench, at the request of plaintiff, adjourned the case till next Court day to allow Mrs Davis, who served the goods in dispute, to be present.

D. McKay v. E. Longelly—Claim £3 16s Bd.' As defendant did not appear judgment was given in default. Geraldine Road Board v. J. Harrison Claim 4s 6d, for rates due. C. B. Sherratt, Collector of rates for the Board, produced the roll, in which the defendant's name was entered, and proved as to the amount sued for, due.

Defendant «aid he had parted with his land some three years ago, and wrote to the Assessment Court to that effect. The Bench informed defendant that he should have attended the Assessment Court when it sat, in order to have upheld his objection to his name appearing on the ratepayers' roll. They, therefore, aa the defendant had not looked after his own interests in the matter, bad no option but to give judgment for plaintiffs. E. iox v. A. Toomey—Claim £3. Dr Foster appeared for plaintiff. From plaintiffs evidence it appeared defendant employed him for a week to do some harrowing at £1 remuneration. Defendant gave him two colts to mouth and back. He attended on them during his leisure time, after and before working hours, and charged fordoing so. For the defence the defendant deposed he hired plaintiff to do all the work, and the latter was breaking in the colts during working hours when there was nothing else doing. Mr Toomey, senr., conoborated plaintiffs evidence.

The Bench did not consider that the plaintiff had laid his case sufficiently clear before it in regard to working after hours, and therefore gave judgment for £l. Geraldine Road Board v. G. Scannell —Claim 3s, for rates due. As the defence in this case was similar to the one previously disposed of, the Bench gave judgment for amount claimed. Dr Foster v. J. Frude—Claim £3 lis.

Dr Foster conducted his own case, and Mr White appeared for defendant, who stated that his defence would be that the the wrong party was sued. The plaintiff in his evidence stated that the case was in connection with professional services rendered to defendant on behalf of his daughter, Mrs Hines, in regard tr> instructions received from defendant to procure a mortgage of £IOO on part of her property, she being a widow. He did not look upon defendant as his daughter's agent. He distinctly took instructions from defendant. The defendant denied that he was responsible. Bis daughter went to him one day and said that Dr Foster wanted to see him. He went, and Dr Foster told him his (witness's) daughter was anxious to obtain a mortgage on some property, and that it was necessary for a survey to be mads first. He (witness) asked how much that would cost and wns informed £1 Is. He asked in his daughter's iuterest and never gave instructions to have the property surveyed. Ha had no interest in his daughter's pro-

perty. He never made himself liable to Dr Foster and should never have gone there had it not been that he was sent for by him. The Bench nonsuited plaintiff on the ground that the wrong party had been sued, TRESPASS. John Love was charged with, allowing four cows to wander at large. The offence was proved by Constable Willoughby and the poundkeeper, W. C. Andrews. Defendaut was fined 20s and costs, 21s. P. Faull, for allowing four head of cattle to wander at large, and W. Palmer, for having six cows at large, were fined 20s aid lis costs and 24s and 12s costs.respectively, ___^______