RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VI, Issue 300, 30 October 1873, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

\ (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.) Tuesday, 2lst October. James Harris v. B. Treweek.—J-a&g-' mentfor the amount claimed, £5 12s. 2d., with costs, 255. IF. Fergusson v.-B. M'Bae.— This was a suit to recover the value of a horse. Judgment was given for £21 145., with 'costs, £1 2d. Mr. Gooday for defendant. Tanks v. T. Gnindy. — After evidence was taken on each side, a non-suit was granted, without costs. Mr. M'Coy forplaintiff; Mr. Mouat for defendant. Friday, 24th October. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., k.M.) Cotton and Henry v. Riddell. — This was an adjourned case to recover £40, the value of a mare sold by plaintiff to defendant. Samuel Henry gave evidence in support of the claim. Robert Cotton gave similar evidence. — Shaw, carrier, of Waipori, gave evidence that the mare sold by plaintiff to defendant was a thoroughly good shaft mare. His Worship adjourned his judgment to the 28th instant. Mr. M'Coy for the plain tiff ; Mr. Mouat for defendant. Tuesday, 28th October, - (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M)' I Cotton & Henry v. Biddell.— His Worship delivered judgment in this case as follows : — The evidence is in favor of plaintiffs, excepting upon one of the issues raised for the defence — that the contract was" waived. The plaintiff Henry, states that when the mare was brought to her stables by Riddell, that he received her Bimply in his capacity of a livery stable keeper, that is for bait or livery. He also says that on the following morning there was a conversation between himself and Riddell, in which the latter wanted to learn what sum Henry would accept to let him off his bargain. Henry's evidence respecting this conversation is supported by that of the other plaintiff. The defendant says that he returned the mare three weeks afterwards, and that Henry received her back. A considerable quantity of evidence has been extracted to show that the acts of the plaintiffs do not accord with Henry's evidence. It appears that plaintiffs have sued the defendant for the time of the mare for the period ho had been away. That they fed the mare from time to time in the same manner as their own horses, and that they worked her a number of times. The evidence on this point was given by plaintiffs' witnesses in crossexamination, and with evident reluctance. It has been attempted to explain away these acts, bub they strengthen the defendant's evidence so considerably, that I am forced to the conclusion that his i 3 the correct version of the affair. Upon his evidence, as a whole, the real facts appear to be that the plaintiff Henry sold and delivered the mare to defendant at what would appear to be, at the least, a very full value, and that defendant afterwards regretting his. bargain returned her to Henry, who, acting under some mistaken notion of his legal rights, accepted her back ; and subsequently discovering his mistake now seeks to enforce, the original contract, which was waived when the horse was .returned, and judgment is therefore for defendant, with costs L 3 16s. Mr. Copland asked that his Worship should enter judgement this day week, which application his Worship refused. Mrt Copland gave notice of appeal. Downie y. Chun Ah Sum. — As some important evidence in this case had not arrived from Queenstown, this case was adjourned to thetUsf-. instant. Ah Slum v. M'Beath. — This was a claim of £2 4s. 6d. for wages. The plaintiff for a period of two- weeks and one day, acted a3 cook (he is a Chinaman) for S. M'Beath, landlord of the Crookston Hotel. Mr. Gooday. appeared for the plaintiff, and the defendant conducted his own defence. Mr. Blewitt interpreted The plaintiff accused the defendant with assaulting him, and the latter replied that the plaintiff y a3 disobedient to orders. Defendant neither admitted nor denied the alleged assault. Plaintiff was employed at £1 per week, and defendant paid £1 4a. 6d. into Court. After hearing all the evidence, His Worship decided that the plaintiff had not received sufficient provocation to justify him in leaving his service suddenly aa he did. The Interpreter complained that the Chinese frequently reply to questions with explanations instead of with a plain "yes" or "no." The plaintiff, Ah blurn, knew some English, and he frequently tried to anticipate the Interpreter when giving answers. His Worship did not consider that a serious assault had been proved, especially as no outward won nds were visible. Judgment for plaintif, 15s. 6d. , in addition to £14s. £d. paid into Court, and costs of Court.