RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume V, Issue 241, 12 September 1872, Page 7

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Monday, September 9

(Before Vincent Pykc, Esq., R.M., and 11. Bastings, Esq., J.P.)

Pennell v. M'Taggarb. — This was a claim of LI 0 for damage to a watch. Mr. Copland appeared for plaiutiiF, and Air. M'Coy for defendant. Plaintiff had given defendant his watch at Havelock, on the 19th August la3t, for the purpose of having it placed in the hands of a watchmaker for repairs. On the morning of the 20th, defendant sent the watch back from Lawrence, accompanied by a letter, couched in indignant language, refusing to execute the commission, for some reason which did not come out very clearly in evidence, but which, one of the learned counsel stated, was a dispute concerning a certain lady. When the watch was returned, the hair-spring had been knocked out and the face of the watch injured. Plaintiff averred that he Sent the watch to the watchmaker only for the purpose of having a pin put in the hinge, and that the da nages specified occurred while it was in dif end ant's possession. A witness named 0 aig said that he saw the watch on the 18th instant, when the works were all right, and the only thing the matter with the face was that the glass was cracked. Defendant and hia brother stated that plaintiff, when giving the watch into Vie possession of the former, said that there was something wrong with the inside, which the watchmaker would find out. Defendant further stated that he did not see the iuside of the watch till the following morning. It was then opened by a man named Hamilton, and the hair-spring was in the same state as at prea nt. In opening thu watch the glass fell out, and was cracked. A lad named Whitney corroborated the evidence of dofendant relating to the opening of the watch. Mr. M'Coy was about to call Hamilton, when the B.M. stated that it was unnecessary to do so. Judgment was given for defendant. Cox v. Macledowney. — This was an interpleader summons Mr. M'Coy ap-' peared for Cox, and Mr. Mmiat for Macledowney. It appeared that Dr. Barrett, formerly a resident at Waipori, bad occupied a house belonging to Macledowney, paying ss. per week rent. About. 11 weeks ago, Barrett went to Wellington, from which place he wrote to Macledowney, telling him to forward hia surgical instruments to Wellington ; to sell the furniture, and pay the rent due out of the proceeds, and if anything re-

mained, it was to be devoted towards paying debts owing by him at Waipori. On the 20th August, acting on this letter, Macledowney took possession and packed up the furniture and surgical instruments, and locked the house. On the 2nd September, the bailiff, at the instance vt Cox, who had obtained a distress warrant, entered the house, and took possession of the goods. Macledowney thereupon showed the bailiff his authority from Bair;tt, and demanded that his claim for 14 months rent should be satisfied bsfore Cox's claim. Ct>x was willing t« allow two months rent. The only point was whether Barrett was a yearly, a monthly, or a weekly tenant. Macledowney stated that he let the house to Barrett a shilling a week cheaper than he otherwise have would done, in consideration of his taking the house for a " long time," and he considered him a yearly tenant The rent was paid irregularly in suni3 of L 2 and L 3, and on one occasion L 5 was paid. A receipt for payment of rent for a certain period was produced by Mr. M'Coy, which defendant acknowledged, was given by him. He claimed rent up to the receipt of the letter—fourteen months in all. He did not sell the goods, because he did not wißh to sacrifice them. Mr. M'Coy contended that Barrett was only a weekly tenant, and Macledowney had only a prior claim for eight weeks rent, and that Macledowney not having sold the goods, they were still leviable. Mr. Mouat said that the landlord had a paramount right, and having Uken possession of the goods no judgment creditor could levy on them. His not having sold the furniture was owing to his <lcsire uot to sacrifice it. The R.M. re.larkud that it was a point whether, by -ctiuning the goods in his possession a fortnight, Macledowuey did not debar his right to recover. The Bench retired to consider their judgment- On returning into Court, the R.M. said that Macledowney had proved his claim to only eight week* rent, for the amount of which he would have priority over the execution creditor. He recommended the parties not to interfere wiih the surgical instruments, as it would be unsafe to do so, but to send them to the owner at once.