RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume XIV, Issue 4669, 21 December 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAY. (Before H. Kenrick, Esq., E.M.)

CIVIL SIDE. / '<■ JUDGMENT FOE PLAINTIFFS. : Banks and Co. v. Oxley.—Claim, £36 Os 3d, for cattle bought at auction by the defendant.—Jridgmeot was given for the amount claimed and costs, £2 6s. : Turner v. Willets,—Claim, £1 7s, for goods sold.—Judgment was given for £1 7s and costs, 7s. Bowman v. Wheel of Fortune Co.— Claim, £74 17s 6d.—A sum of £57 9s 6d was paid into Court and accepted by the plaintiff, and the case was withdrawn. ? , Hansen y. Takerei te Putue. —Claim, £8 8s 3d. —Judgment had been confesced for the sum claimed. Punch v. Casey and McDermott.— Claim. £6 10i.—£3 12s 6d had been paid ! into Court and accepted by the plaintiff, therefore the case was withdrawn. Judgment Summonss. " maetin v. maingay. Claim, £119s 6d. The Bench ordered the amount to be paid in two instalments by the 21st. Janu* ary, or in default a fortnight's imprisonment. Defended Cases. bobough council v. spencee. Claim, £29, for water supplied to the defendant's property at Parawai for two years. . r Mr Miller appeared for the Borough, and Mr Lush for the defendant. ' Mr Miller said that there was a dispute as to whether an arrangement had been made by which Mr Spencer was to have the water free of charge. The Borough Council had written to Mr Spencer, telling him that some definite arrangement should be settled upon, or the water should be cut off. Mr Spencer wrote sulsequently requesting the Council to lay a pipe to his premises, and he would—under protest—pay for it, pending Lib endeavouring to obtain eompansation for th'lawater being out off. The Borough refused to take any money under protest. F. C. Dean, Town Clerk, deposed that the Borough had refused to acknowledge aiy claim or grievance that Mr Spencer considered he might have had, and upon finding out that Mr Spencer was using water end not paying for it, the Council cut it off, and that gave rise to the correspondence already referred to. Mr Spencer then paid for nine mouths' supply, and Mr Spe jeer and his tenants have continued to use the water up to the present time; end the money sued for was in accordance with the usurl chLvgeg.

By Mr Lush : An inch pipe was laid on •Jxt.defendant's property, and he was not to pay for it, but'that was an arrangement with the old Water Supply Committee—a body distinct from the Borough Council. The money now sued for is due to the Borough for water supplied since the Borough obtained control over the water. It was not until the Council found out that Mr Spencer was supplying his tenants that the Borough charged for the water. By Mr Miller—When the Borough found that the water was being used by Mr Spencer, and not being paid for, they put an end to any implied arrangement by cutting the water off. Mr Lush contended that there was no case to answer,.as it was not shown that any rate had been struck; but this was shewn to be unnecessary as applied to property outside the Borough. He (Mr ! Lush) said that his client suffered loss through the action of the Borough ia depriving him of his riparian rights, and the House of Kepresentatives had recommended the Council to give Mr Spencer some relief.

The Bench said it thought that] the agreement made by the old body (the Water Supply Committee) had not be?n ratified by the Borough, and Mr Spencer had enterrd into an agreement with the latter body to pay for the water; any compensation the defendant was entitled to was not a matter for the considerations of the Court. Judgment would be given for the amount claimed and costs, £3 7s.

. Mr Lush asked that execution might be stayed to enable communication to be made with Wellington, but the Bench saw no necessity for it, as if Mr Spencer was entitled to compensation it would no doubt be granted to him. , PABKER V. "WIGHT.

Mr Lush for the plaintiff, and Mr Miller for the defendant.

A claim was made of £15 15s; a set ioff of £10 10s had been made, and £3 11s jpaid into Court. I The plaintiff deposed that he had sold a horse to defendant for £35, and he owed ;Mr Witjht an account, which was to be deducted from that sum, and the horse ■was delivered.