RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Cromwell Argus, Volume III, Issue 152, 8 October 1872, Page 6

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thursday, October 3. (Before E. H. Careiv, Esq., 8.M.) Kendall and Berry v. O'Neil.—A claim of £2B Us. 9d. on a bill of particulars. Before going into the case, his Worship read a note from Joseph Berry stating that his name had been inserted in the summons without his consent, and that he did not wish to be identified with the suit in any way. Mr Allanby, who appeared for Gustavus Kendall, asked that the name might be struck out. Mr F. J. Wilson, for defendant, consented, and his Worship gave the required permission. Mr Wilson pleaded "bar to jurisdiction," stating that if the case Avere gone into, accounts amounting to £9l would have to be investigated; and that, he submitted, could not be done even under the extended jurisdiction of the Court, which was limited to sums not exceeding £SO. Mr Allanby replied that the account in dispute in the present case had never at any time amounted to £9l. His Worship was inclined to think the Court possessed jurisdiction to deal with the case ; he would, however, reserve the point for consideration. Mr Wilson then pleaded not indebted. Mr Allanby stated the case for plaintiff. A few weeks ago, in the Warden's Court, the present defendant sued the plaintiff for wages, when judgment was given against Rendall individually. A set-off' put in against O'Neil for his share of the " tucker " bill could not be gone into in the Warden's Court, and his Worship had suggested that the claim might be brought in the R. M.'s Court. Hence arose the present action. The items charged in the account were for defendant's share of tucker bought and paid for by plaintiff during the time that he. Berry, and defendant were living together. Plaintiff (G. Rendall) then gave evidence, from which it appeared that portions of the accounts sued upon still remained unpaid ; and. moreover, that Berry was jointly liable with the plaintiff for payment of at least some of the accounts. Mr Wilson submitted that the plaintiff was not yet in a position to recover : he must settle up the accounts before he could sue the defendant. Either of the three parties could lie summoned by the creditors, and the plaintiff was seeking to recover money which the defendant might be called upon to pay a second time. The Magistrate: "1 think, Mr Allanby, you will have to show that the plaintiff is solely liable for any particular account before he can recover." The Plaintiff: " The defendant's term of engagement is nearly up, and he may pack up his swag and be off any day, leaving me to settle the unpaid accounts the best way I can." Mr Wilson said that his client was willing to try and settle the accounts privately with plaintiff, but would not consent to incurring further expense in the matter. The defendant would, however, much rather the case should proceed. At this stage Mr Allanby intimated that the plaintiff would, under the circumstances, accept a nonsuit. His Worship entered a nonsuit accordingly : plaintiff to pay 10s. expenses to defendant, and £2 2s. solicitor's fee.

James Lanprv.kix v. Charles O'Donsem..— The plaintiff sought to recover the sum of £SO upon an I 0 U given him by one Joseph Woodhead and guaranteed by the defendant. Mr V. .1. Wilson for plaintiff. Mr Allanhy, for defen- , *lant, pleaded a genera!denial. The evidence of plaintiff (a shepherd on Ardgour Station) went to show that on the 20th February 1871, he agreed to sell to Wnodhead a share in a certain ! ■water-race, on condition that O'Donnell would ■" go security" for payment. On the same date plaintiff and Woodbead went to O'Donncll's store together, and the defendant wrote out the document now sued upon.—The Magistrate, on reading the document, said that an I 0 U made payable on a particular date, as in this case, became a promissory note ; therefore, the document relied upon by the plaintiff, not being properly stamped, could not be produced in evidence. Mr Wilson replied that his client was sueing on the guarantee as a separable document, and was prepared to pay the penalty and the shilling stamp duty upon such document as an agreement under hand.—At this stage his Worship agreed to adjourn the case for twenty minutes, to enable counsel to refer to certain law-bonks. When the case was again called, Mr Wilson admitted that the view taken by the Resident Magistrate was correct. He therefore asked for a nonsuit. His Worship gave judgment accordingly : plaintiff to pay 10s. for defendant's expenses, and 4:25. solicitor's fee.