RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT—Yesterday.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 67, 23 December 1871, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT— Yesterday.

Before AY. FRASER, Esq., TI.M. E. Y. Dixon v. W. Wood. —This Avas a claim to recover the possession of a piece of land. Mr Lascelles appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Tyler for defendant. The, learned Counsel stated that the matter had been settled. The defendant had agreed to give up possession within 14 days, and Avas to be allowed to remove his house. He was also to put the fence in the same pondition it was before he broke it down. The Court then made an order in accordance with the above terms. Judgment for Plaintiffs. —E. Eeed v. 11. Donkin, £5 12s lid. for goods sold and delivered. W. Wilson v. A. Beissel, £2 10s. 9d. for goods. J. & J. W. Rountree v. Bainbridge, £1 10s.'for butcher’s meat, same v. Hart, £1 Os. Id. Union Bank v. R. C. Long, £ll 2s. 9. on a dishonored cheque. Smiling Beauty G.M.C. v. J. Webb, £5 35., Calls, J. Craig v. S. Young. —This Avas an act'on to recover the sum of £ll Is. for services as Auctioneer and Valuer, in negotiating for the sale and transfer of the Anchor Hotel, valuation of stock &c., £G Is. had been paid into Couit, but the balance was disputed. Mr Tyler appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Macdouald for defendant. The circumstances of this case have been already published in the case of Young v. Cohen. The point in dispute

was, whether Mr Craig should receive £5 or £lO for his services (the other £1 Is. was for attendance in Court as a witness, and was not disputed). The plaintiff deposed, that in this case there was no special agreement, and in such cases it is customary to charge 5 per cent, on the value. —Mr Macdonald cross-ex-amined the witness as to what he had been paid for valuing the Grahamstown Hotel and the Wharf Hotel, and said said there was an agreement in these cases. He got £5 for the Wharf Hotel job, and £7 10s for the Grahamstown and on another occasion £l2, but he’d more more trouble over this business with the Anchor Hotel than any other.—R. M. Clarke, auctioneer, deposed that 5 per cent, was the usual charge in these cases when there was no agreement.—Mr Skene said lie should expect 5 per cent, in such a transaction.. —For the defence Samuel Young deposed that he employed Mr Craig to value the Anchor Hotel. His valuation was not completed in consequence of Mr Cohen going off his bargain, and witness brought an action against Mr Cohen, and recovered damages. Mr Craig took a good deal of trouble in the matter. I said his reptuation was at stake. Mr Craig agreed to negotinto the transaction for £s.—Mr Craig was recalled, and contradicted this positively.— The Court gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed, and costs £3 0s Gd. J. Rae v. O. 11. Downes. —This was a judgment summons case for £3 12s Gd.— Defendant was examined as to his means and ability to pay, and stated that he had been ill and unable to liquidate the debt iti consequence (a certificate from Dr A. G. Merrett was handed to the Court). Had no property except some mining shares, which were worth nothing. Was lately possessed of an hotel hut it was mortgaged. The R.M. said he would not make any order under the circumstances, but told the defendant ho must endeavor to pay the plaintiff, and if he could dispose of his property for over and above the amount of the mortgage he must do so, and pay his debt.

A. Lascelles v. P. Ferguson. —Mr Dodd for plaintiff.—This was a claim for £l6 10s 8d for professional services as solicitor, money advanced, &c. The defendant disputed the debt.—The plaintiff having deposed to the nature of the services which were performed by Messrs. Hill and Sons, the plaintiff’s agents in Aucklaud, in conducting a case in the Supreme Court. —The defendant said that he had agreed with plaintiff to pay a lump sum down of £35, but if he was assured there would bo no more charges made in the matter ho would pay the demand.—Judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed.

M. Furey v. Jerry Waite. —This was an action to recover the sum of £6 5s for damages arising out of a collision between the plaintiff’s omnibus and defend ant’s cart on the Tararu road on the 2nd inst. —Mr Macdonald for plaintiff, Mr Dodd for defendant.—A son of defendant stated that lie was coming into Grahamstown with his cart laden with bottles for Mrs Cairns, and when near the Shellback. Plaintiff ran into him and smashed his cargo, but did not do a.iy damage to the cart. —The plaintiff gave an opposite version of tlie story, stating that it was defendant’s cart that ran into him, aud broke the bar, and did other damage to the extent spoken of. There was plenty of room for defendant to pass. Witness had to send his trap for repairs to Mr Mackay, who sent in a bill of £2 10s, which witness paid. Witness lost his occupation from Saturday to Monday; values his lost at 50.3 per day.—Simon Fraser, one of the passengers by the omnibus on this occasion, deposed to there being plenty of room for defendant to have passed.—Charles Joyce, another passenge , gave similar testimony.—For the defence, John Boggs was called, aud stated that he was on the cart at the time of the collision. He considered it was Furey’s fault rather than Waite’s, but it was an accident.—Benjamin Hill (who declined to give evidence unless his expenses were guaranteed) said he was on the cart at the time of the occ cnce. Considered the collision was an accident. —The R.M. gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed and costs, £3.

Jas. Gurney v. W. J. Winters. —This was a claim for £1 10s, balance of an account for hire of horse and dray.— Judgment for plaintiff. D. Nathan v. F. C. Dean. —This was a claim for £35 for rent. —Mr Tyler appeared for plaintiff and the defendant in person. —On the application of the defendant, and by consent of the other side, the case was adjourned for a month for the attendance of witnesses from Hawke’s Bay.

Jeremiah Casey v. W. Baker.— This was an action to recover £lO for damages for short shipment of a case of wine, and was adjourned until next Court day. W. j. Stanger v M. Fitzpatrick and OTHERS. —This was a claim for £lB Bs, for cartage. Mr Macdonald for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed. E. Avery v W. R. Harvey.— This was a claim for £1 16s, for four days’ wages as a carpenter and joiner. The defendant paid £1 8s into Court, and disputed the balance. There was no agreement between the parties, and the question was, how much per day the plaintiff ought to receive? The defendant offered at the rate of 7s per day, but plaintiff said this was not enough, and that the current rate of wages was 8s and 9s per day. The II.M. gave judgment for the amount claimed. W. Adrian v J. Mann.— Mr Dodd for defendant. This was a claim for £ls 10s on a promissory note. The defence was that there was no valid consideration given for the note. Judgment for plaintiff, but to be suspended pending the hearing of the next case. J. Mann v P. Warren.— This was an action for £l7 10s, on a builder’s contract. The defence was a set-off, which was dis puted. Mr Dodd for plaintiff, Mr Macdonald and Mr Miller for defendant. It being now 3 o’clock, and it being anticipated that the ca;.e world be a long one, Mr Macdonald suggested an adjournment until next Court day, which was agreed to. The Court then adjourned.