RESIDENT MAGISTRATES’ COURT.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 20, 30 October 1871, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES’ COURT.

SAURDAY, OCTOBER 28. (Before W. Fraser, Esq., R.M.) R. Bache v. Manning & Burdett. — Messrs Macdonald and Miller for plaintiffs. Mr Tyler for defendants. This was an action to recover the sum of £SO for work and labour and for a punching machine sold and delivered. Mr Macdonald and Mr Tyler appeared for the respective parties. Six witnesses were sumoned, aud it was expected that the case would have occupied the Court for some hours, but as soon as it was called on Mr Tyler stated that it had been arranged to take a judgment for plaintiff, and that a punching machine in dispute between the parties be returned. . The plaint in this case set forth that Richard and Thomas Bache offered to make and deliver to the defendants a punching machine for £SO, and that subsequently all their estate became vested under the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act in J. Renshaw. R. J. Feltus, and J. Barker as trustees, for the benefit of the creditors of the aforesaid R. and T. Bache. Afterwards, on or about August 26th, the machine was delivered to defendants, but they had not paid for it, wherefore the complainant now claims the sum of £SO. The R.M. said he could hardly enter judgment for plaintiff unless the case was heard and hearing fee paid, &c. Mr Macdonald suggested that the case should be adjourned for a week. This was agreed to. Case adjourned for a week accordingly.

J. Kenrick v. T. Tressler —This was an action to obtain possession of premises near the Weslej'an Reserve, Grahamsiown. Mr Tyler for defendant said he was not in a position to dispute plaintiff’s title in this Court, hut it was intended to try the question before another tribunal, and his client was prepared to execute the requisite bond for payment of costs as required by the 89th section of the R.M. Act, .whera_.it is provided that it the defendant give proof of title, or give security for payment of costs in case an action for possession of laud be brought against him, the Magistrate is to dismiss the case. The case was therefore dismissed, and will be tried in another Court. J. Kenrick v. W. McClare. —This was a case precisely similar to the last, and was dealt with in like manner.