RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume IV, Issue 657, 12 May 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Tuesday, Mat 10. (Before J. Giles, Esq., R.M.) Barrow v. Lynch. In this case the defendant had been summoned to appear in answer to a charge of assault, and in consequence of nonappearance a warrant was issued for his apprehension. Hay v. Collings: Claim for £3 9s, for bread supplied. The case had been heard the previous Eriday, when defendant had to submit to a nonsuit in consequence of imperfect evidence. An-additional witness was called who, however, proved nothing definite, and plaiutiff was again nonsuited witb costs of Court and defendant's costs, 15s. Sloan v. Gardiner: Claim for £27 4d. This was an action brought to recover the above amount, being defendant's share of goods supplied to plaintiff and himself jointly. Defendant filed a set-off for £7 19s and pleaded not indebted as to the balance. It appears that the two had been working in a claim together as mates. The work did not proceed according to plaintiff's satisfaction and he sold out. He then went round to their creditors settlement of accounts but could not succeed in obtaining their consent to release him from all further responsibility on payment of half of the accounts. He then took copies of the accounts to Gardiner, informed him of the circumstances, and gave notice that he should expect him to settle his share that night or the following morning. Gardiner failed to pay up and plaintiff settled the accounts as per vouchers produced and sought to recover from defendant his proportion. Plaintiff met the set-off by producing a receipt for £7 10s charged in the set-off and the remaining item of nine shillings for timber i

was also struck off. Defendant said ho had given Sloan no authority to pay the debts and the creditors would have been quite willing to give time. Bailie and Humphrey whose account was £23 17s Id would give him " any amount of time." He believed plaintiff was anxious to sell him out. His Worship was of opinion that plaintiff had shown sharp practice towards his mate, Gardiner, and considered he should have seeu the creditors and endeavored to obtain time. Judgment would be for plaintiff for amount claimed without costs, and defendant would have time granted to pay. At the expiration of a month the first instalment of £i would be due, payment afterwards to be by weekly instalments of £1 each. He als6' wished to call attention to a point which might be argued but had not been raised by defendant as au objection in the present case. The statute only provided for one partner to sue another in any matter in which judgment had beeu already obtained against the party who sued. There had been no judgment obtained by any of the creditors against the present plaintiff, and without expressing any opinion as to the validity of such objection, he should wish to notify that the judgment in the above case should not be established as a precedent for future cases.

Judgment was entered for plaintiffs in the cases of Brunn v. Birty, and Eeid v. Paul.