RESIDENT MAGISTATE'S COURT.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 188, 7 March 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTATE'S COURT.

Fbidat, Mabch G. Before J. Giles, Esq., M.D., E.M. ai'LEOD t. bechino. Mr Tyler appeared for the plaintiff, wlio claimed eighteen days' and threequarters wages for work done to a ketch, the property of defendant, now lying in the Lagoon. The hill of particulars attached to the summons stated that the work had been done in October and November. The plaintiff, however, on being examined, had to substantiate his claim. Several witnesses proved to plaintiff having" worked at the craft. Mr Bechino, defendant, deposed to employing plaintiff, but produced a receipt from him for all wages due up to the 23rd November. He admitted however, that plaintiff had been employed in December, but only by his partner's instructions, as plaintiff owed him money. Defendant said that he was prepared to go into any account subsequent to the 2nd December, as his summons had been for work done in October and November, and stated that both himself and Ids partner were willing to pay plaintiff all his demands against them, but that they wished the account for board deducted.

Mr Tyler, for the plaintiff, argued that the question of dates to an account was not essentially necessary. His client had lßf-days' wages, and had evidently made some error in confusing November and December ; that a receipt was presumptive, not conclusive, evidence of payment ; that defendants was evidently trying to shuffle off paying his client's demands ; that Bechino admitted to plaintiff's having worked at his craft during December, but by his partners' orders, and although Bechino did not seem to understand the law of the case, every one knew that one partner's act was binding on the other ; be therefore urged upon the magistrate that his client was entitled to a verdict.

Dr Giles, in giving judgment, stated that on the first opening of the case his mind was made up with regard to the inadmissibility of evidence touching duties and facts not mentioned in the bill of particulars attached to the summons, but that the ingenious pleading of the counsel engaged had been the means of bringing in evidence of subject matter not before the court, yet that such evidence had only tended to confirm his original opinion. He thought that plaintiff had not meant to include any work done in December in the bill he had sued upon, but finding his case was a lame one, had shifted his ground, and had shuffled very much in giving his evidence; he further stated that lie disagreed with the learned counsel with regard to the defendant's evidence, for lie certainly thought it was honajide, and not made as a means to shuffle off plaintiff's claim. He, therefore, should non-suit plaintiff, thereby giving him an opportunity of of amending his case. HEED AST) CTJEI.E T. AVM. NEWTON". This was an action brought for the recovery of money duo on a dishonored acceptance. Defendant not appearing, judgment was given by default. CHARLES TATTON X. JOHN TSLATN. Plaintiff sued defendant for £l2 for hoard. Defendant admitted part of the claim, disputing one week, for which reason he had refused to pay the account. Dr Giles, after hearing all the evidence, allowed a reduction of one week, and gave judgment for plaintiff for £l.O. BAIIiIE AND HTJMPHBET V. It. C. I/ITSCOMBE. Neither plaintiffs or defendant appeared. Mr. M'Culloch, one of the

plaintiffs firm hero, wished to conduet the. case, but having uo written authority, could not do so, Mr Tyler subsequently applied for a remand until Tuesday, on which date Mr Bailie would appear. Adjourned accordingly to Tuesday next, notice to bo given to defendant, JAMES POWELX V. LEONARD AVIIITTIHOTON. Plaintiff summoned defendant for ;C5 5s (id for pulling 'down and rebuilding a baker's oven on Addison's Flat. The plaintiff deposed to his having agreed with Whittington to do the necessary work to bis oven for £2 cash, and a receipt for his bread bill then duo for £3 5s (id. A witness named Cox corroborated this evidence. The defendant admitted the work done, hut stated that lie employed plaintiff as ho owed lain money,Jand ho thought he would enable him to work it off, but stated that only £2 in all was to ho the sum paid. Dr Giles gave judgment for full amount claimed and costs, allowing defendant to deduct the amount of his bread bill. THOMAS DICKENSON T. G-AttUINEH. This was a claim for goods supplied. Defendant pleaded a set-oil*, but Dr Giles, after carefully taking all the evidence, allowed oidy 80s set-oil', and. gave judgment (less the set-oil") for full amount claimed. The Court then adjourned until 0 a.m. this day. One case, which occupied a few minutes, came on in the Warden's Court, which then, adjourned,