RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume VI, Issue 1022, 15 November 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Tuesday, November 12. (Before Joseph Giles. Esq., P.M.) Two drunkards were fined in the usual penalty. CTVIT, CASES. Win. Struthera v. Thouias Tvecnan —Claim for £slss9d. Mr Shapter offered, on behalf of defendant, payment by instalments of £1 per week. Plaintiff bad also received a telegram from defendant to the same purport, and expressed willingness to thus accept payment. Order made accordingly. Judgment being given for amount claimed and costs. George "White v. E. Butler—Enlargement of time granted for service of summons. George "White v. E. Butler and E. Seawright— Claim for £75 18s Gd. Disputed contract accounts. Mr Pisher for plaintiff. Mr Shapter for defendants. A plaint had been filed by defendants against White, and the counsel for parties agreed to amend bills of particulars on either side, to bring cases within jurisdiction of the Court, and applied for adjournment of hearing until Friday next. Granted. George "White v. I). Emanuel — Adjourned for one week.

John Munro v. "W. Morris—Claim for £B2 9s Od. Dishonored acceptance, and auction charges on sole of City Hotel. Defendant admitted the account with the exception of one item for bell-ringing. Defendant had purchased the property as the highest bidder for it, at auction, but had failed to comply with conditions of sale, whereupon it was publicly notified that the same would be put up again. In the interval defendant closed the bargain by giving the acceptance for the purchase money, which he alleged also included all charges. Plaintiff said the item for bell-ringiug was not included. Defendant was not prepared with contradictory evidence. Judgment for amount claimed and costs 255.

¥m. Graham v. James M'Gavin— Mr Shapter for defendant—Claim for £l2 13s. unpaid purchase money on two shares iu the Long Tunned claim, Addisons. Adjourned by consent until Friday, for production of agreement.

Gilmer brothers v. Joseph Carmini —Mr Fisher for plaintiff, Sir Shapter for defendant. Claim for £ll ss, board and lodging provided for defendants wife. The amount was not disputed, but the defendant pleaded, by his counsel, that the wife having committed adultery, the husband was no longer responsible for her debts, and that he had given public notice to that effect prior to a portion of the debt contracted. It was sought by plaintiff's counsel to prove that tho offence, if any, had been condoned by the husband, and that Mrs Carmini was travelling en route from Ilokitika, where she had been living with lumbers of defendants' family, to her husbands home at the Lyell, when the debt for necessary board and lodging was contracted- The Court deferred judgment until Friday next.

C. A. Jones v. P. J. Bruen—Claim for £1 10s for services rendered io defendant while ill from injuries inflicted in April last. Plaintiff claimed that he was employed to watch over and attend defendant at night, that he had done so and had also rendered other services for which he claimed payment. Defendant denied having employed him, or sanctioned his employment, and averred that plaintiff had not kept careful watch over him, but on the contrary, turned into bed and slept soundly, keeping him awake and in perfect agony by his hard snoring. Tnat he had afc" rwaids dismissed him, but that Jones had stuck up to his account a breakfast, dinner, and tea, and now sought to make an exorbitant charge, which he, defendant, thought " too much of the monkey." Plaintiff indignantly denied this statement. Judgment was given for 15s and costs.

Christopher Brown v. H. Mosely— Claim for £1 12s. Goods sold and delivered. No appearance of defendrnt. Judgment for amount claimed aud costs. White v. Arnett. Mr Fisher for defendant—Claim for £1 10s work and labor done in removal of certain timber from the bush at the South Spit. Defendant had contracted to shift the Post Office Hotel, and, needing timber for rollers, had agreed with plaintiff for the services of him* self and horses, to work with defendant's men in dragging fallen trees from the bush. The dispute arose upon a misunderstanding as to whether the defendant had promised to pay 80s for the first afternoon's work, or 30s for the entire work of hauling out some thirty trees of various lengths. Ultimately another man was employed to finish the work and plaintifF now claimed 30s for his afternoon's work. Judgment was given for £1 and costs, 9s. Coleman v. Sullivan—Claim for £3 balanco of amount due for repairing boat. Judgment for amount claimed and costs 9s.