RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuapeka Times, Volume II, Issue 70, 12 June 1869, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before W. L. Simpson, Esq., R.M.)

Mondat, June 7.

WaHop v. Eobert Q-ann. — Claim, £20, for damages and non-delivery of goods carted by defendant from Dun-

edin. The evidence ofjjjhe plaintiff went to sliow that a refusal of nineteen bags of rice took place on the ground of their beipg damaged, which were taken away and stored by defendant. The defendant endeavoured to show that only one bag was damaged, and that another bag was also destroyed by his horses, which he offered to pay. The Magistrate, in going ovey the evidence, was satisfied that nine of the bags were more or less damaged; he thereforA ordered that the plaintiff should get delivery of ten of the bags, and that defendant pay £4 13s. 3d. to plaintiff, defendant to pay storage — each paying their own costs.

G-ann v. Wa Hop.— Claim, £1 15s. This case was taken into consideration in verdict in former case.

Thursday, June 10.

Hughes v. Thomson. — No appearance of defendant. In consequence of the absence of the bailiff, who had not made the necessary declaration of personal service, judgment was reserved. Clark v. Turner. — No appearance. Struck out. Barnet v. "Ward. — No appearance. Struck out. Mears v. Bastings, G-riffen, Meyer, andEichards. — Claim, £26 11s., amount of dishonoured order, Tuapeka Hospital. At the commencement the defendants, through Mr. Bastings, pled indebted ; but afterwards Avithdrew the admission, and pled not indebted as private individuals. It appeared from the evidence that Mr. Mears presented an order signed by the defendants on behalf of the hospital, to the Treasurer for payment. The Treasurer refused payment, and wrote on the back of the order his reasons for refusal : — " This cheque or order cannot be paid, as the Visiting Committee never gave an order for the work." Mr. Bastings, being called, said the signature to the order was his, and he also believed that the signature of Dr. Stewart was correct. He knew nothing of the merits of the case; When the order was presented to him for signature, and seeing the necessary signatures to it, he at once signed the document, believing all was right, and that the rules had been complied with. Examined by Mr. Mears — The order is in the usual form. "When my name is attached, I expect everything correct. I have no doubt the document now in Court is the one referred to in the rules and regulations. It is the usual way in which hospital accounts are paid. I know nothing in the rules that could justify the Treasurer to refuse payment. Mr. Meyer, being examined said — When the document was presented to me I found it correct, and signed it. On one occasion formerly the Treasurer refused to pay an order presented to him. The present document I believe is the one referred to in the regulations ; it is the usual mode of payment. I don't think that the Treasurer has any right to refuse payment, by the rnles, of any order duly signed, similar to the present one. The rules having been produced, the Bench thought the rules and regulations were not duly complied with. He would reserve judgment.