Image TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage Tile
Image size: 7680x10752 Scale: 35% - PanoJS3
Page overview thumbnail

Article text

LOCAL COURTS.
Adelaide: Thursday, June 3.
FULL JURISDICTION (civil).
Before Mr. Mann, S M, Mr. A. Hallett, J P., and Mr.
Nicholis, J.P.)
CRAWFORD V. WALKER
Action for £16, eight weeks' rent.
The defendant pleaded that he owed only five weeks'
rent.
Mr. Wigley for the plaintiff; Mr. Ingleby for the de
fendant. '
Mr.B. J. F. Crawford, the plaintiff, stated that the
defendant was a weekly tenant of the Newmarket Inn,
which belonged to plaintiff. The last rent was paid up
to the 18th March ; it was paid by distraint at that
time had been going on ever since at £2- a week.
Mr. Wigley stated that defendant was keeping out of
the way.
The Court therefore ordered immediate execution.
WILSON v. HOSKIN.
Action for £23, money paid by the plaintiff for the de
fendant on account of the purchase of a horse.
The defendant pleaded that he never authorised the
payment of more than £5.
Mr. Wigley for the plaintiff. Ths defendant did not
appear.
The plaintiff stated that on the 3rd December, 1857,
the defendant was with him at the Cattle Yards, where
he purchased a horse and requested plaintiff to pay for
It. At first he asked him to piy a deposit of £3, which
he did, but ultimately plaintiff paid the whole of the
money, and defendant took the horse away. The receipt
produced was given by the seller o; the horse.
Verdict for the plaintiff.
SiAjnioitD v. Cavb.
Action for £15 Os. tsd., on aocount of board and Iod--
Ing. Defendant pleaded that ha was not indebted.
Mr. Boucaut for the plaintiff; Mr. Andrews for the
defendant.
The plaintiff stated that from the first week in Jane
1857. till January, 1858, the defendant ledged with her.
He was furnished with particulars every week, but he
left without paying the amount now claimed. It was
never agreed that there should be deductions made
when defendant, who was a bailiff, was away on busi
ness, though ihe did make deductions when he wu
absent.
Defendant stated that he agreed to pay plaintiff £1 Is.
a week whilst he was at home. He told her he did not
expect to be charged whilst absent on business. Wss
away from 65 to 70 da;s during- the period claimed for.
Verdict for thn imount claimed.
Tibsil v. O'LouGHLcr,
Plaintiff did not appear.
Mr. Ingleby applied for paymeat of expense* to tha
defendant, who had been brought all the way from
Kapunda to meet the plaintiff, who did not appear
The Court allowed £ i 103.
Tolly v. Scales ahd Axothxx.
Action for £ 10 6s., for goods said and delivered.
Mr. Parker for the plaintiff; Mr. Wigley for one of the
defendants (Pape).
Plaintiff stated that he supplied between £30 and £40
worth of goods to defendants, after a statement from
Scale's that he and Pape, the other defendant, who was
to find money, were carrying on a farmiag and public
house business together in the country. Scales said the
goods were to be supplied in his name. Some to the
value of £i 4s. were supplied to Scales, whilst he was a
draper's assistant in Adelaide.
Mr. Wigley called Scales, ona of the defendants, who
stated that he bought the goods ia question of the
plaintiff, and they were sent to him (Scales) at Myponga,
aud he sent a cheque for £16 in part payment. Never
told plaintiff that Pape was a partner in the public
house, but that he was going to Cud money, and assist
for a short time. Pape never gave an order fur any of
the goods.
By Mr. Parker— Pape found about £280, and other
persons asssisted. Witness himself had money and
stock to the extent of £100 whan be went into busi
ness. Witness was now insolvent. Pape was never
considered a partner. Had never stated that ' We bad
about £300,' meaning himself and Pape, They never
went into partnership.
The declaration made by this witness in the Insolvency
Court was pat in, and from that it appeared that he did
cay that he and Pape had £300.
The Court said it was dear that toe witness Scales
had sworn to two different statements. Verdict for the
plaintiff.
TWTGDKT T, HuHDLISTOIT.
Action for £20. the value of a roller, belonging to tha
plaintiff, and obtained by the defendant.
The defendant pleaded that a part of the roller be
longed to him.
Mr. Ingleby for the plaintiff; Mr. Parker tot the
defendant.
It appeared from the evidence that the plaintiff sent a
roller to the defendant to ba repaired. When if was
fiaished defendant refused to give it up on acaount of a
dispute about the ownership of some part of the roller,
it having been lent to plaintiff by a man who had goHt
ofdefendant.
Verdict for the plaintiff; damages to be reduced to
£1 8s., on the return of the roller; 12*. to be paid for the
repair of tbe roller. ,
Basksts v. CUbsxots.
Action for £38 11s., loss sustained by the plaintiff
from the fact that two cows purchased by him of the de
fendant did n»t calve ' as agreed njon' (Laughter.)
The defendant pleaded that he did not warrant the
cows. .
Mr. Andrews for the defendant.
Tbe plaintiff stated that he bought the tone cows
under a verbal agreement that they were to be in fall
milk at 'certain dates, and they did not' come into milk
till some months afterwards. There was, however, a
written agreement which said nothing about the
warranty.
The Court said the written contract tfttled the case;
the warranty should have been stated in thaC*' i
Verdict for the defendant.
Vmx t. Llotd.
Action for £3 16s. 6A, on account of work and labour
done.
Mr. Atkinson for the plaintiff. The ri«fimfl«n$ did not
appear,
verdict for the plaintiff.
fBefore Messrs. Mann, Hallett, and Mildred. J
NELSON v. RYLEY
Action for £30, loss alleged to have been sustained by
the plaintiff from the defendant falling to take him at
an apprentice according to agreement. The defendant
pleaded that he did not agree, ani that the plaintiff did
not suit him. There was a further plea as to a claim
for wases of a set-off and a payment into Court.
Mr. Nelson, the father of the plaintiff, said that Mr.
Ryley took his son on trial, and at the end of that time
expressed himself satisfied with him. The pay agreed
upon then was £20 for the first year, £15 for the
second year, and £35 for the third. Mr. Ryley at that
time said he would get the indentures done in a week,
but he went on from time to time and did not do so ; and
afterwards he discharged him. Before going to Mr.
Ryley the lad earned £1 a week. The plaintiff, a lad
about 1 i years of age, confirmed the statement made,
and added that he remained with Mr. Ryley from June
to November with the supposition that he should be ap
prenticed. During a part of the time Mr. Ryley seat him
out of the shop and employed him to pave a cellar; and
afterwards to do the porter's work, instead or keeping
him behind the counter. At the end of about six months
Mr. Ryley discharged him. Would not have gone to work
by the week at less than £1 a week and his board.
By Mr. Boucaut— Never refused to do anything ordered
by Mr. Ryley.
Mr. Ryley, the defendant, stated that he never agreed
to have an indenture of apprenticeship made. The lad
was taken on trial, and after a month it was found that
he was not suited to the business. Defendant formed
that opinion, but said nothing about it to the father.
Eight or ten shillings a week and board would be the
outside of pay for a lad not articled, and knowing nothing
of the trade.
By Mr. Ingleby— A porter was paid 25s. a week, and
lived in the house.
Catherine Brooking stated that she was present when
the boy Nelson refused to sweep out the show-room on
being told to do so by Mr. Ryley.
Verdict for the plaintiff, £4 16s. 8d.
The Court adjourned.
$