RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume I, Issue 3, 29 February 1868, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before Major Cr er, R.M.) Monday, 24th Fe\ iary, 1868. Buckley v. Capstic| — For recovery of £7 ss. 6d., being b ,rice of contract for making a sod fence./. This, was &n adjounr'ycas& to allow time for 6ne^f^e*^jM|^LThpma6 Mann, to app^a^^^^^^^^HMHßEt deciding as to wh^^^^^^^^^^^^M penses, &c, £sj^^^^^^^^^^^^^H be paid before^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H 23sSs^ialn. No /n t °Jz fba^^^H a diMc<f Was pre/^^icej^^^H meas^red._ Knew/ Darfe ?4^^^^^| Did not understand thiste tf^^^^^H be the same as I l ' B - Jspe^^^^^^| agreement was nW / M\, Capstick H fhje have- a, ditch siinr-Darw T^^^^^^H he wetit round U^tmhe^^^^^^^M found&hat instead^^H|^^^^^^^H height.^it twas^^^^^^^^^^^^H places. Th^g^^^^^^^^^^^^f o^Hßu^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H

sary, as the summons Coiilct hard been sent to the Clerk of the Court at Switzer's for him to serve it there.

His Worship said it appeared to him that the contract was for a sod fence, and no more. He would therefore return a verdict for the plaintiff— wages, £7 ss. 6d., ; costs, £6 13s. 3d. His Worship said he would allow three days to pay costs, but the other item must be paid at once.

M'Beath v. White.— Claim of Lllßs. 6d. Defendantplednotindebted. M'Beath sworn, deposed that some time before the 10th of April, 1867, George White brought a young woman, to whom he understood he (White) was engaged to be married, to his shop, and bought some things, for which he paid, and asked him (M'Beath) to give her anything she wanted. About the 10th of April she came herself and said that White had asked her to come for several things in the way of household furniture, &c. He served her with the things mentioned in the invoice, for which he received part payment. Of the total amount White had paid £2 on the 2nd of September ; and as he considered it rather hard for White to pay the whole of the amount seeing he was not to be married to the girl, he allowed £1 Ba. 6d. to be deducted from the account. Prior to the first payment, he saw White at the hospital, and presented the account as shown in Court. He said he would make it all right, but could not at that time, j White told him on Saturday last that he had paid him the sum of £1 12s. 6d., but he (M'Beath) had no recollection of it. However, he was willing to deduct that sum also.

Cross-examined by Mr. Keen— White was not with the girl on any subsequent occasion. When White said he would make the account all right, it never struck him (M'Beath) for a moment that he referred to the goods obtained on the lOtli of April only, but to the goods as shown in the account presented to White at the hospital. Would not have given the girl goods on her own account. None of the goods, so far as he knew, were delivered to White — they were all delivered to the girl.

By his Worship— He believed that White had sold some of the goods.

Mr. Keen, for the defendant said that this might be a hard case for Mr. M'Beath, but he thought it a harder case for his client. He contended that the order given by White was only intended for the one particular order of the 10th April. His client had ho idea that the account was more than £3 13a. Id.

George White deposed that he recollected, prior to April last, visiting Mr. M'Beath's with the young woman referred to. She got goods, and he (defendant) paid for them. Did not tell M'Beath to supply these goods. On the 15th April he saw M'Beath, and told him that he had no money in his pocket, but would pay the bill in a month. Any goods got after the 10th of April were not got by his consent. On the 28th April, M'Beath saw him at the hospital. Did not show him any account. Knew nothing about the goods obtained after the 10th April, till M'Beath's brother showed him an account for them.

Examined by M'Beath— Was engaged to be married to the girl. The only goods he sold were those obtained first.

His Worship adjourned the case till the 16th of March.