RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume XVI, Issue 5050, 20 March 1885, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAS".

(Before H. Zenrick. Esq., R.M,)

CIVIL»SIDE. Judgment Summons.

Bobbett v. Autridge.—Claim, £14 5s 2d.—Mr Miller for plaintiff.—Defendant appeared, admitted his liability, and stated that he had offered to pay a portion of it but plaintiff would not accept it; he also agreed fo pay a weekly, instalment in. liquidation of the debt, which had been running about four years.—An order was made for the payment of the amount by' weekly instalments of ten shillings, or in default fourteen days' imprisonment.

Defended Cases. Jacobs v. Manuell. — Claim £7, damages for non-delivery of a cow. Mr Miller appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Lush for defendant.—Mrs Jacobs, wife of the plaintiff, deposed to having, in January 1883, been asked by her husband to in ' speet a cow belonging to Manuell, with a view to purcbasingjt; she said she had no feed for it, but defendant undertook to keep it and feed it until it calved, and then deliver it; a -bargain was concluded, and the amount of £4 10s paid for the cow. At the .defendant's request it was let out of the plaintiff's yard, as the former said it would, go home to his place; a short memorandum of agreement was drawn up. The defendant afterwards said the cow was lost, and although he had searched for it be could not find it. Manuell afterwards offered to refund half the money, but the plaintiff decided to wait to see if the cow would turn .up. Manuell subsequently accused witness of writing something on the agreement after it was sighed, and she refused to snow it to him.Had never seen the cow since.—The plaintiff swore that he had purchased the cow, after asking his wife to look at it. The cow was to have been delivered within two or three days of calving," which was then shortly anticipated. It had not since been delivered.* If he got the animal after calving it would have been worth at least £7.—For the defence, Mr Lush called Charles Manuell, the defend/ ant, who stated that in January, 1883, he was taking cattle to Parawai for sale, and was called back by McMahon, who offered to purchase some of them. Drove them back into Jacobs' yard, when Mrs Jacobs also bought one of them. , There was no agreement as to pasturing the cow. The remark was made by McMahon that the animal could run with his, when Jacobs said he had no feed for it just then. Did not think that the document produced,' purporting to have been signed by him, bore his signature.—M. McMahon deposed to having been at Jacobs' house in January 1883, and saw Manuell .passing the house with cattle, and stopped him to purchase one of them. Manuell asked him to buy a heifer; he did not, but he advised Mrs Jacobs to buy it, and she did. Mrs Jacobs at first objected to do so, as she had no place to feed it, and witness recommended her to do the same with it as he did with his, viz.: let it go back to Manuell's to run. Got his animals afterwards from Manuell's place.— John Buckland swore that he was at Jacob's place late in the afternoon of the day in question, and saw a cow in the yard which Mrs Jacobs said she had bought in the morning for £4 10s. Saw a mob of cattle passing towards Thames in the forenoon. —Robert Wills averred to having been asked by Jacobs and Mrs Jacobs to keep his eye on a cow that was about to calve.—James Bennett said Mrs Jacobs had to pay him ten shillings to drive a cow down from Manuell's for her. —The Bench decided*, that the cow was delivered at the time of sale, and judgment would be given for defendant with costs, £7 Bs. .

J. Nicholls v. W. Dickey.—Claim, £10, for working a mare without permission.— Mr Miller for plaintiff, and Mr Lush for defendant.—After bearing the evidence, the Bench considered that the agreement on the part of plainiff to pay for grazing precluded the possibility of defendant legally using the mare for working without paying for it, and gave judgment' for £6 6s and costs £4 12s.

This concluded the business.