RESIDENT MAGISTRAL'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 161, 9 March 1871, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRAL 'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before TV. L. Simpson. Esq., X M., .uw. ? V, Herbert, Ifs-q , J. f) Thursday, 2:«> March.

Kern v. Barthbt.— Claim, £3 Vl-i , :£ ;._' amount of judgment claimed in Vi-'.V i---Adjourned for ons month, at th.- ; o.^m! of plaintiff, to enable defendant to- o;>oi» his claim.

O'Neill v. Hanson.— Claim, f"o W- ; -, for damages sustained through d- j f'-r >■'<. >.'-.<''.• cattle breaking down Iris fence. suid<.w!'ug grass within same. ?'r. F. U. -M #v - lj y appeared for the plaintiff. The ev.Vl-.bcTs went to sliow that a certain amoinu oi damage was done, but the Bench, remarked that the damage sustained no proportion to the sum claimed. Verdun - ; 1 205., and costs.

MOXDAY, (JTK MaROK. • • (Bc"oiv W. L. Simpson* 1v?q.,21 M., as. . Horace Basting*, It-sq , «I.i* ) Chalmers v. Motheriohll.— Ciaiui, £J0 : arrears of rent. Mr. W: Hayos app'-uv. j for Mr. Chalmers, who was imnvoi '.i : nj absent. No appearance of dciani.).:' Verdict for amount claimed ; al «>, v. v% •••: of ejectment to issue against defemla .: .

Fitzgerald v. Wahh.—O'hxmi^O.hi' . for loss and damage sustained by piiusiu . in consequence of defendant having t.7cc,^ fully and violently ejected him frou: >«. mises rente 1 ! by him in L'eel-strec. on 27th February. Mr. M'Coy for pl.^r.-if, Mr. Copeland for defendau t. it ap; •• : S that the defendant, E. Walsh, is pi\ victor of certain properties in Lawronc . -."-I amongst the rest, the building called >.hv Athenaeum. From tho evidence ' . -Wfendant it appears that he had been acoiiC two months absent from Lawrence, a.-d that lie left the power of attorney v, jrh Mr. Jamison to act for him, he bei-.-i; h:-; only agent. He donied having go; -a:y rent for tlie premises called the Athens. I:*'..,1 :*'.., but on cross-examination explained •l^x he had got certain cheques (crossed) ;>■ .-„■ Mr. W. Hayes, of which cheques lit 1r...i made no use lie never authorised ',[•: Hayes to let liis premises.

Mr. Hayes' evidence went to shew i':. ' on or about October last, the defend..: 1 was tormenting and daily dunning h: ■! about getting him a tenant for the C:\.~. ? Hotel, then tenantlcss ; thai after a grcv . deal of 1 rouble, and a very great deal of correspondence, he succeeded in getting ;■ tenant. Mr. Hayes, on more thin i>no cccasioi 1 , se:it him (Mr. Walsh) mone; s by cheque, Mr. Walsh never acknowledging receipt. lie had let the Ailisnceum on two occasions since Mr. WaU-Ks absence, one of the parties being F;L - gerald, the plaintiff. On cross-examl 1.ation, Mr. Hayes admitted that lie hud no written authority from Mr. Walsh ; lie seldom or ever required any such. LV acted as agent as Walsh was always at , him about getting Ids property let. Tl c witness here produced and road alette ■ from Mr. Walsh's solicitor, cauiionui: him not to act any more as agent for >.ir. Walsh, otherwise the law would be li-id recourse to. He replied to same and, characterised said letter as impevuhient

Fitzgerald's evidence went to pi-oro that lie had, on the 20tii February , rented the Athenseum from Hayes, tlv was sent to llaj r es as being the pai-fcy i-i charge. He occupied the premises more than a week. He required a house of tUu kind where he could carry on his busiu-J: j as draughtsman and architect. i ie~ viously he was living in the Siri.-ii'-uc and Potts' Hotels, but lie could not : . -y on his business to advantage fro\ -.1..: noise incident to a iDublic house. _>.ic:r

having possession for the above ij?r:.< i, he had to leave in consequence oi r;>~ defendant peremptorily and vioi' itlv ejecting him, giving him only ten mi T>i i '.•>:. to clear out. He at once left, xh- hi consequence was subjected to loss. ?\<\ his feelings were outraged, an-"; b-; character damaged, as lie was jeered at by parties in the street, shouting th.il ht was not long in the house before rue bailiff took possession, and tlie defendant himself joined iv the jesls.

This was the case for the plaintifT. Mr. M'Coy contended that .the law. was very clear on the matter ; that it did not. require a -written authority to constitute an agent. It was quite sufficient if the principal homologated and endorsed the acts of tlie servant, which was manifestly done in tliis case, as the defendant or. two occasions received moneys fi -;m Hayes, being rent for the defencb.ar premises.

Mr. Copland, for the defence. or> tended that the Court had no juiit,^:--tion, and that it was a matter of lulu A matter of slander could only be brought before a higher tribunal. • ■ . The Beach could not see it in the sa-'.'; » light as the learned counsel, as the action ' was neither for slander, nor wa.i it 9. matter of title. ' ■ Mr. Copland further- contended i^&fc Mr Hayes never was an agent of 2Sr. Walsh, as lie produced a 'power of attorney in favour of Mi\ Jamison, who alone was his agent, an"d that Mr. hlnyen lir<d no right to interfere in .any way with tfe affairs or premises of his client, and hi 1 ? - client on the very first" time of his co.jn.g to Lawrence, justly repudiated the of Mr. Hayes.

After a lengthened speech from tho learned counsel, the matter wasadjournrsc* for a short period to enable Mr. Hayes ro produce a letter received by him fro.:: Mr. Walsh sometime previously.

At 4 o'clock the Court again sat. ~yv Hayes appeared, but stated that lie c y-x\ \ not find the letter.

The Bench having considered tli« whole matter, gave verdict in favour of defendant.