RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1475, 4 March 1886, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temur a—Wednesday, March 4, 1885.

[Before J. Beswick, Esq., R.M.]

TOWN BY-LAWS

On taking his seat His Worship said that witli regard to the case of the Police v. Twomey, the By-laws were improperly made, and consequently the case f/ould be dismissed.

CIVIL CASES.

W. Storey v. Charles Harte—Claim £2 6s. lo this case there was no appearance on the part of the defendant, and the plaintiff stated he had gone to the North Island.

Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs.

B r own v. Oockrcft—Claim £2 6s.

Mr Aspiuall, who appeared for the plaint ff, asked for an adjournment which was gnnted. J. Tangney v. McLennan—Claim £J6I . , , The defendant admitted that 18s was due, but he said he had offered to give an order on his employer for the amount. The plaintiff said he waited for the order but did not get it.

Judgment was given for the amount without costs.

C. Sfnrv v. Orlando R. Matthews Claim £2 13s.

Mr TWwill appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Raymond for dafendant. Mr Raymond said the claim of the plaintiff was admitted by defendant, but a set-off for £4 was put in, and he wished to prove that. He called Orlando R. Matthews, the defendant, who deposed that (he plaintiff was indebted to him for the sum of £4 for the services of the horse Traducer. There was no word spoken about a guurantea being given for some time afterwards. The mare was placed in his (defendant’s) paddock and he looked after her himself. The advertised price was £4, guarantee £6. The groom told witness that plaintiff wanted a guarantee, but that was some time after.

C. Story gave evidence to the effect that he sent the mare to the defendant’s place, and told the groom some time afterwards that he wanted a guarantee. The groom said “ All right.” He gave witness to understand it was a guarantee. The mare did not prove in foal. She had not been properly treated. Counsel on both sides addressed the Court, and his Worship said he was not satisfied with the cftastion of guarantee. The groom ought, to/have been present to give evidence. H« would give judgment for the plaint ff for £2 13s. The defendant could bring his case on again, but at present he would strike out the set-off.

J. H. Dickenson v. E. Mitchell—Claim £1 I9a lOd.

This was a most complicated case. It appeared that there was an account extending over a great number of years between the two, and on the sth of February, 1884, they had a settling up. The defendant was then at the office of the plaintiff, and signed a receipt for a promissory note which the plaintiff afterwards give him. The plaintiff afterwards found out that a mistake had been made, and that the sum of £1 4s remained due to him. To this was added the price of a bag of flour which was not charged. After a patient hearing His Worship gave judgment for £1 4aand costs.