RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume XV, Issue 4897, 19 September 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS BAY. (Before H. Kenrick, Esq., E.M.) CIVIL SIDE. Judgments foe Plaintiffs.

Payne v. Ro we.—Claim, 15s for professional services ; costs, 10s.

Forgie v. Flatt.—Claim, £4145, balance of account for goods supplied ; costs, 10s.

Same v. Hawley. — Claim, 13s 4d, balance of account; costs, 11s. Same v. Copeland.—Claim, £1 15s lOd for goods ; costs, 103.

Thames Newspaper Co. v. Green.—Claim £6 11s Bd, for advertising; costs, £1 0s 6d.

Defended Cases

Jenkins v. Robson.—Mr Miller for plaintiff.—Claim, £28 6s Bd, for money paid for land to which the defendant was unable to give a title, and interest on it.—The plaintiff deposed to paying defendant for thepurchase of two allotments at at Paeroa about two years ago. He afterwards learnt that Robson had not a good title to the land, and had repeatedly applied for a settlement of the transaction, but without avail, the defendant stating that the matter would be completed at the Land Court held at Paeroa, but after that Court sat he found that nothing had been done in connection with it.—The defendant stated that he was prepared to give a title, upon a deed being submitted to him for signature, to two allotments, provided plaintiff would agree to a slight alteration of boundary.—After hearing the evidence of plaintiff, and George Simpson on his behalf, and of defendant and Capt. Daltou (called by Robsoa), judgment was given for the amount claimed, and costs for taking evidence at Paeroa and the hearing of the case, in all £7 15s.

Wilson v. Whitehead.—Claim, 14s, paid for a pair of boots, alleged by plaintiff to have been returned to defendant. —Mr Miller for defendant.—Plaintiff deposed to buying a pair of boots from defendant, she took them home, tried them on, and found they did not fit. Took them back to defendant's shop and asked for another pair ; a boy in the shop gave her another pair, which on comparing with those returned proved smaller than the others, which were too small for her. The defendant then gave her a pair which suited her. The boots returned were put away, and witness did not see them again. The first boots cost 14s, and those she subsequently tried were 12s 6d, so that Is 6d was to be returned to her, and defendant told the boy to give witness that sum. The boy said plaintiff had not returned the first pair. She returned home without either the money or the boots.—A daughter of plaintiff and another witness corroborated the last witness 1 evidence.—The defendant swore that he saw the boots purchased by tho plaiDtiff on the 6th (those said to hare been returned), and they were not the same kind of boots as those sworn to by the plaintiff. On the 13th, Mrs Wilson went to his shop and asked for another pair of boots, which were tried on, and fitted. She then asked for Is 6d, difference in the price between the first pair and the second. Told his boy to give her the change, and the latter replied " What about the other pair." He said he had not seen them. The plaintiff said; she had returned them; every search was then and since made for the boots alleged to have been returned, but they had not been found, nor had the paper in which they had been wrapped up been discovered in the shop.—An apprentice of Mr Whitehead's gave similar evidence.—-The Bench said the evidence showed on the one side that the boots had been returned, and the j other seemed to show they had not, but it was not likely that a respectable woman and her daughter, and an independent witness, would conspire to do Mr Whitehead out of a pair of boots. There was a chance of some doubt exisiting in Mr Whitehead's mind, and the boots might in a hurry have been hung up in the shop after being returned. Judgment would be given for the amount claimed, and costs £1 3s. There was no doubt that Mr Whitehead really believed the boots had not been returned, and conscientiously defended the case, but it appeared to be a very mysterious case, and Mr Whitehead and his assistant had. apparently relied too much on their experience in identifying the boots. Judgment Summons. • West v. Mattiu Poona.—Claim, £5 14s 7d. The defendant agreed to pay the amount within one month; and the case was adjourned for that time to enable him to do so.

Rev. Robert Laird Collier, writing from London about the moral atmosphere of the Strand after dark, says:—" Parliament talks about it at every session, has just been talking about it, but this pious, proudly practical nation permits a shame at which Paris or New York would blush, and which no city in Christendom, save London, would endure for a day."

" What did you do with that letter that was on my table ?" asked Grus de Smith of the coloured boy who cleans up his room! I tuck it to the post-office, sah, and put it in the hole." " What did you do that for ? Did you see that there was no address on the envelope ?" " I saw dar was no writing on de 'velope, but X 'lowed you did that on purpose a so I couldn't tell who yer was writin' to. I'se an edicated negro, I is,"

Highway Hosbebs Almost, to sell the poisonous drunken, purging stuff as medicine to honest men, innocent women, and harm* leas childreu to weaken and destroy th^ir systems and health, when purs h^rmleaa Hop Bitters can be had that cares always and continually at a tricing cost, Ask druggists OS pbysiciaqa, Read.