RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuapeka Times, Volume II, Issue 53, 13 February 1869, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

, (Before W.<; L. Simpson, ;Es(j., KM;. Thursday, 12th February. Bbown t. G-niFFEir. — Mr. Keen for plaintiff; Mr. Richards for defendant. Claim;* £8, recovery of a gold watch, for whicH £8 tvas lent by defendant. Plaintiff deposed that some six weeks before Christmas - last he canje from "Waitahu-na to Lawrence, and lodged at defendant's -hotel. Afterspending all" his" money, he asked the defendant for the loan of £2 ; that he gave him the gold watch as security. He afteywar4s bowowed more money, until it amounted^ to £B.^' The defendant told., plaintiff tbat he could get the watch 'at any time on the payment of the sum of £8. The money -Jiad been frequently tendered to'himj- but. he had always refused it, declaring that he had advanced the sum of £12. Plaintiff swore that £8 was the amount dWlon the watch. . William Griffen deposed* that some time before Christmas the plaintiff came toJus^otel,- and after^ spending what 'motley lie had; asked to have some trust. Defendant refused, but was willing to leifd him some money. Plaintiff received money, at various 4kneV to the : amountfof £9:' He asked for mQre < „.but.«.was refused. Plaintiff then ofrejed to sell the watch for the lam of £12. Defendant agreed, and

paid the extra £3. The plaintiff stayed in the hotel five or six days. Defendant swore that he never lent the money on the watch : it was a bona fide purchase. Plaintiff was informed that, as the watch was cheap at £12, he might at any time get the watch on repayment of the money. This had not been done. Frederick Webb deposed that he was present when defendant refused to lend plaintiff more money ; but he agx'eed to give him an extra £3 for the gold watch, £9 having already been received. Witness saw the money paid, and saw defendant get possession of the watch. The defendant purchased the watch. Sere the counsel for the plaintiff, at his client's request, asked for an adjournment, on the ground that he would, produce witnesses who could prove that the defendant had given a different version of the affair to other parties. At first his Worship demurred, as the plaintiff had closed, his case, and ample time had been afforded him for the production of witnesses. Ultimately, he nonsuited plaintiff, thus enabling him to bring his case before the Court on a future occasion, if he thought proper. Hat v. Bttchan. — Claim, £8 55., commission, on sale of timber and cradles in the year 1863. Mr. Mouat for plaintiff, and Mr. Keen for defendant. Defendant denied ever having supplied timber or cradles to plaintiff on commission. He had sent him timber by arrangement that what he got over and above Tuapeka prices and carriage was to be his own proper remuneration. The plaintiff had no "books, and defendant had burned his ; and no evidence of a satisfactory nature being forthcoming, verdict was given to plaintiff for £5 15s. and costs.