RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.—Yesterday.

Thames Advertiser, Volume VII, Issue 1856, 12 September 1874, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.—Yesterday.

(Before W. Fjuser, Esq., iur.)

Paeslow v. Buchanan. -In this case, a claim for £50 money had and received, evidence had been taken at a previous sitting of the Court, and his Worship reserved judgment. He now gave judgment for the amount claimed, and costs.— There was another plaint, Buchanan v. Parslow, for £32 5s Bd, amount of a promisorynote. .This case was withdrawn. Parslow to receive the balance between that amount and the judgment, in satisfaction of the judgment. The costs were £5 18s.

Judgment Summons.—M. Breen v. Henry J. Bargrove. This was a claim on a judgment-for £6 155.-He was ordered to pay 2s a week, and in default of any payment to undergo a month's imprisonment.—D. Magoffin v. H. P. Andrews.— This was a claiu on a judgment for £2 14s 6d.—Defendant was examined is to his means of payment. The judgment was obtained in Greymouth. He was obliged to file a declaration of his inability to meet his creditors. No order was made.—Phillip Warren v. Wm. Lomas.— This was a claim for £4 10s sd, amount of a judgment.—Defendant was examined as to his means. He was a miner earning 8s per day, but he was paying 5s per week on another debt.. He was ordered to pay 5s per week until the debt was paid, and failing any payment to undergo a month's imprisonment.

Judgments foe Plaintiffs.—J. T. E. Rogan. v. Golden Bar G.M.C., claim, £17 2s, professional services, judgment for plaintiff for £12 12s, and costs. (The remainder of the claim was for interest, and it was not allowed.) Costs, £5 2s.— J. W. iShaw v. James Chapman, claim, £3 17s 9d for goods Costs 193. —W. Davies v. Patrick Delahuntly, claim, £4 3s, balance of rent due to him for premises in Grahamstown.

J. W. Cooth v. James Andrews.— This was a claim for 18s 6d for goods. Mr Dodd for the plaintiff. This claim was, it appears, for liquor supplied.—His •Worship told plaintiff he could not recover for these items.—Defendant denied owing any money, and said that the account had been paid. The case was struck out; no costs allowed.

J. C. Q, Austin v. T. H. Stephens.— This was a plaint for ejectment. Mr Tyler for the defendant,. Mr Macdonald, for the plaintiff, opened the proceedings stating the circumstances of the case. He called defendant, who deposed that he lived in Bail'.ie-street, in allotment 821, in Shortland, and had lived there B years. He bought the half of the allotment and one house from William Holland Smith. He had not the other half, but he occupied the house on it, but he did not claim that house at all. It belonged, he believed, to Edwin Austin, who placed it in bis possession, and told him not to give up possession to any one. He paid the rent to Mr Stewart, (lleceipt produced). It was in the name of Mr Austin. By Mr Austin he meant Edwiu Austin. Before Edwin Austin he bought his goods for £3. Ho had writings from Mr Arsiin about the goods and the allotment (documents produced), He did not know that the allotment or the furniture belonged to any person else. He was only taking care of the house and one half of the allotment for Austin, the other half and house was his own property.— Cross-examined : When he bought the house from Smith, Edwin Austin and another single man were living in the other cottage. He paid half the ground rent to Smith, while he had possession, and subsequently to Element while he had possession. When Edwin Austin had possession they paid the rent between them, which ever happened to have the money. Tne present plaintiff never asked witness to pay the rent on his account, nor demand any rent. Element left about two years ago. Edwin Austin upon going away gave him the authority produced to keep possession. Witness paid £15 to Smith for the house and half allotment.—Plaintiff deposed that he resided in Aucklaud. His brother some timo ago lived down here. At that time witness had a transaction with Mr Element, and purohased from him a house, allotment, and furniture, for which he paid £18. That was the allotment in rospecfc of which these proceedings were taken. There wore two cottages built ou the allotment. He came to an arrangement with his brother to sell to him what he had bought from Element. He was to pay so much a quarter as interest, and the principal in 12 months. The principal had not since been paid, nor had the interest been'kept up. Defendant knew all about the purchase, and about witness's brother being in arrears. He was in defendant's house about a weok ago, and saw the greater part of the goods which belonged to him (witness). The writing producod was his brother's, to whom the property was sold. His brother was to pay the ground rent in witness's name, tie got tho lease produced from Mr Stewart, .lie had never

[ let the premisos to defendant. The j annual value of the allotment and cottage was £15. Paid him the purchase money, and two years had now nearly passed.—This was plaintiff's case.-For the defence, John Allen deposed that the signature to the document produced was his. _ It was brought to him by Mr Austin when he was going away. He did see Mr Austin sign it. Mr Austin told him ho bad sold the things, and left the house in charge of Stephens. He did not see any money paid, and Austin did not tell him how much ho sold them for. Ho never told witness that the house belonged to his brother, John Austin. - William Holland Smith deposed he was once the owner of the allotment in dispute (deed produced). He held possession by that lease _ from Mr Stewart, and paid rent from time to tune, generally quarterly. He disposed of one of the two houses which he had put up and half the allotment to Mr Stephens, and tho other half he sold subsequently to Element. The rent was first paid by Stephens and witness, and subsequently by Element and Stephens.—Cross-examined: Ho sold the half nearest to Grahamstown to Mr Element, and the other half to Mr Stephens. He paid rent up to the time lie gave up charge to Element, but after that ho paid no more rent.—Mary Stephens, wife of the defendant, deposed that she paid rent at different times to Mr Stewart for E. Q. Austin, at his request. The last payment was on July the 9th. She never paid rent on behalf of the plaintiff, and know nothing at all about him. .This closed the evidence, and Mr Tyler addressed the Court.. He contended that .they had shown a prima facie case of right of possession to onehalf the allotment, and therefore could not bo ousted from the allotment.—Mr Macdonald replied.—The Court ruled that the_ defendant had established a prima facie case of right to possession to one-half of the allotment. He suggested that some arrangement should be eomc to between themselves., He dismissed tho case.—Argument ensued regarding costs.—There was another case in which Mr Austin sued Mr Stephens for £40 damages, but after some discussion amongst counsel, it was decided that plaintiff would accept £3 and costs, on condition that defendant surrendered the half of the allotment and the house on it, and paid ground rent in future to Mr Austin for the half upon which defendant's house stood.—The case was therefore withdrawn.