RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Manawatu Times, Volume VIII, Issue 367, 4 October 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

His Worship took, his. «eat punca tually at 10 o'clock, i i •in-idh/'i T. Nelson y. Burmeidter.— Claim £3 19s 2d. Mr* Hawkins \^plain. "tiff, -W\ P?r£iri% for., a^ndijn& The claim was for gbo,c& solil Wlß7B. It appeared the estate yyaß.^sßigped,bitt had again got into plaintiff^ bands. The defence was that defendant did not order the goods, which were for another roan, that a claim was made five years ago which was at once rejected by Burmeister, and ,no claim had been made. Jsiuce." CftfrUPerkin*'*. asked that the case be adjourned on* its merits, as the person who got the goods would then be present, and also because the plaintiff did not produce the book m which the see* ond man's accouts -was shown. Mr „ Hawkins said ;r thajb^ Mr Perkins should ., ha^e.'giveir notice. His Worship ' granted the adjournment, costs of sume to fall on the losing Bide. . ' , " . V rr G;. W. Russell V. G. M ShUiler.— Claim £9 18s. Defendant confessed judgment forL6 18s, bu,t dia.puted hS half cost of erecting a boundary fence. Mr Knssell deposed that Lhe fence m question, was abont 2 chains long,_6feefc high close boarded rinio, with sawn totara posts and rails. He did not give notice, but agreed with (defendant as to j, the fence • to . be erectod, and he agreed' to i pay half the cost. The entire fence cost about L 8 IQb. : — ;Mp Larcomb^C. E. ? depoßed to the fence bei jig a sdßstantial 01JQ, well e.re6ted, under his supervision^ '$he qos^ of «imbQ|* woi^ld be about £6, the l^hqr an 4 nails cose LI 16s, 'and there was his commission at 5 per cent. The fence occupied nearly 2 chains. Defendant deposed that he did not agree with the plaintifß to erect a fence. Plaintiff waited- on -him 7 and told him what the fence was he' pro* posed, as bad been erected. He agreed to : the fence proposed, but it was not to be erected until plaintiff told him what it wonld cost. This he did not do. . The price was also excessive/ andlie considered the whole fence cbuldl)e put np for £3.-^-In cross examination defendant said he did nQtj'Qbjeot when the fence was being e.rfjQ^ ed", nor since ; thought ifc/ defendant liked to erect the' fence he would riot interEere ; did not ob* ject previously when the account was sent. Judgment for plaintiff, for amount arid costs, £1 14s. [Left sitting.]