RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CAMBRIDGE.

Waikato Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2322, 28 May 1887, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CAMBRIDGE.

Yestkuday.— (Before Mr H. W. Northcroft, R.M.) Skvkual undefended eases were disposed of, after which RANSFIKI.D V. StUBBTXG Was Cilllod. Mr Dyer for plaintiff, Mr Hay for defendant. Claim, £8 4s.—John _ Gwynueth deposed that Stubbing was his assistant. He had done work for him on Maungatautari block. Stubbing had employed Ransfield on his (Mr Gwynneth's) account, and ho had paid for potatoes and various things had by him, which had been deducted from his wages. Ransfield owed him money for a survey made live years ago, and he tiiprefore deolinod to pay him. Ho (plaintiff) said he should summons Stubbing , , and he (Gwynneth) said he could if he liked,—Mr Dyer said on a former occasion tho absence of Mr Stubbing had been the excuse for an adjournment, and .yet he was not brought forward to-day.—Judgment for plaintiff for £3 1-is Gd, and costs 3os 6d. Cunwoirm v. McGariiy.—Claim £10 for breach of covenant. Mr Dyer for plaintiff, Mr Hay for defendant.—Mr Dyer said .£.':"> had been paid into court, so tho question was narrowed dowed down to the question of damages,--In this Mr Hay agreed, but said, as far as he coulr! set? of the cases at present, he should advise his client fco briny a cross-action against plaintiff. —C. \V. Gndworth depossd he was one of the plaintiffs in the action. Mr Garry had leased a farm from plaintiff and had undertaken to leave a portion of the farm in grass. The lease had expired and McGarry had not fulfilled his contract. Some of tho land would have to be ploughed and sown afresh. £10 was claimed a* d.unages.—Hugh Fitzgerald and Thomas Vickers gave evidenee in support <|f plaintiff's case.-- Ttobt. Hcaslip deposed t'iat the damage could be remedied—ground bo, ploughed mid sowed, for £2. — Henry Lauib, and Eelix McClarry, (son of defeiidant)also gave evidence that only about 2h acres of the farm wanted re-sowing. —Mr Hay suggested thst plaintiff should have remedied the defeat, and then come before the court and claimed what it had cist. Unfortunately his client had paid £5 into court which admitted that some damage had been done, but he contended that it had been amply satisfied by the amount paid into court.—The evidence being so very contradictory the K.M., decided to give his decision next court day, and it the meantime he would view the ground. Ekknxen v, Campgkll.—Was adjourned until Monday next to enable Mr Hay to look up fche case.