RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 3032, 9 July 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAY. ' (Before W. Eraser, Esq., R.M.) There was no police business. ; CIVIL SIDE. S.-H. BUBNINGHAM Y. WABBEN. This was a claim of £1 18s for freight. . Defendant did not appear; Robert Graham Mackay appeared for plaintiff, being his. agent, and having been examined, judgment was given for the amount claimed, with costs, 19s. WILLIAMS V. SPBAHS. This Was a claim of £1 14s lid for goods. ; There was no. appearance of the defendant. / ; William-Bathgate Williams, a storekeeper in Grrahamstown, deposed that he supplied the defendant with tho goods •mentioned in the bill of particulari. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs. . M'MTJLLEN V. LAWBIE AND AUCKBAN;. This was a claim of £40 the amount .of a promissory note. Mr Dodd appeared for plaintiff. "- His Worship pointed out that the summons was informal, the whole of the names of defendants not being inscribed thereon. Mr Dodd said that was a mere clerical error, and he was in a position to prove that the defendant had acknowledged the debt. The summons was amended. James .Robinson deposed—That he was a shareholder in the Bullion claim, Tapu Creek. All defendants were shareholders in the Bullion claim, and the liability was acknowledged by all except Auckran and Latrrie, The money was due for driving a tunnel, with their sanction. His Worship—l suppose these two people havn't paid up their snares,'and you wish to frighten them into a settlement P Witness —Yes,: your Worship. Judgment for plaintiff as against John Auckran and Archibald Lawrie, with cpsts. . .*.-..■• THOBNALLY V. HOPKINS. This was a claim of £1 10s for six j weeks' wages. - I

Plaintiff was examined, and judgment given for the amount claimed, and costs 14s. r>:; hirscji v. seageb. This was a claim of £12 10s for use and occupation of an allotment belonging to plaintiff. .Uobort Burra, agent for plaintiff, was examined, and judgment was given for £12 10s and costs, £2 10.. YEttNON V. CKEAGH. There were three claims, each of 10s, for rates. Judgment for ihe full amount and costs was given in each case. Defekded Oases, macnab v. bose. The claim in this case v as £10, amount of a dishonored cheque. Mr Macdonald appeared for plaintiff, Mr Dodd for defendant. Mr Dodd said he would offer no defence in this case (there being another one pending between the same parties), and judgment was given for plain 1 iff accordingly, with costs, £2 4s. MACNAB V. DOSE. The claim in this case was £36 3s, promissory note and interest. The same counsel appeared on either side. Duncan Macnab deposed—That that was the signature of W. Rose the defendant. The bill had been presented, but not paid. • ■ Cross-examined by Mr Dodd: I got that note, for part payment of property that Mr Rose bought from me. 'Ihe property was called the Ballarat Ho<el; nothing else ; and in consideration of that bill and other monies paid I was to give him the title. Defendant had three months to yay the money in. I was not to give him the title.in the meantime. It was not three and. six months. The promissory note and the amount of the cheque (in last action) was the balance of tlie purchase money. That is all the money Mr Hose owes me.

His Worship reminded MrDoddthat the question of title could not affect the case. There was no agreement in writing to counteract the promissory note. Their course was to bring an action for the title. ;

■ William Rose was examined, and said the terms of agreement had been three and six months by two bills, and before those bills came due he was to have the title of the property. He applied for it, but Mr Macnab did not give it him. Witness bought the Ballarat Hotel and"'a- little house beside it. He gave Macnab a promissory note of £50 for it, but afterwards asked Mr Macnab for £15 out of it, and that would leave a sum to the amount of the threemonths bill. That was how the dishonoured cheque came about. They subsequently had a difference about the property attached to the Ballarat Hotel, and hence the difficulty. He was willing to pay the money if Mr Macnab would give the title and acknowledge his ([witness') right to all the property. His Worship said no reason had been shown why the money should not be paid. Judgment for plaintiff for £36 3s and costs £4 ss.

Adjottbned Cases. BINNBT T. rSKOD&BASS. This was acclaim for £32 6s, money due for goods. - Mr Brassey for plaintiff; Mr Maodonald for defendant. Mr Macdonald said it had been agreed to adjourn the case on condition of the summons being amended — sufficient notice not having been given. Mr Brassey corrected Mr Macdonald —nothing bad been »aid of conditions. His Worihip pointed out to defendant's counsel that the clause he referred to was to enable the. clerk of the Court to make the summons returnable at whatever time he might in his discretion think sufficient, but without reference to that the affidavit showed that tho summons had been served eight days. The case was adjourned without regard to conditions. ..,.' JAMES EEID V. EDWABD LAWBENCE. This was* a, claim: of £9,12s ;5d for goods, and was adjourned by consent. G-. DA.LZIEL V. P. o'BEIEN. Claim, £1 Os 3d for goods. Adjourned by consent till next court day. The Court adjourned.