Quesnstowa. J.P. COURT. Tuesday, March 13, 188 S. (Before W. Warren and I ’. St. Oin.tr,. Bsq.s., J*.P.) Thomas Richards v. \V. H. Lid stou. Mr Smith for plaintiff; Mr Turton for defendant. The plaintiff sued the defendant to recover the sum cf .€7 IDs, alleged to be owing by the defendant upon the following particulars of demand, viz. ;—l4 weeks’ rent of premises situated at Maori Point at 8s per week (£4 4s), and six cane - bottomed chairs (£3 15s). The plaintiff, Thomas Richards, in evidence stated that he was the owner of tho premises mentioned, and that his agent (Mr Le Suer), under Lis instructions, let the pro mises to Mr Lidston for Gs per week. The chairs were also sold to Mr Lidston by Mr Le Suer, his agent,, aud supplied by him (the plaintiff). Fred. Le Suer corroborated the plaintiff's evidence, stating at the same time that when dealing with Mr Lidston he did not disclose the plaintiff’s-name, but himself rssumed the ownership of the property. Mr Turton here put in an agree ment, which was objected to by Mr Smith liecau.se it was not stamped as required by law. The (defendant swore that he- dull not recognise Mr Richards in, the matter,, as he had. al ways paidi rent, and transacted all his businesss with. Mr lit; Seur, and, that he had pro mised to pay him the amount as. soon as he con id get the money. Tho bench, in giving judgment, said tho case was a rather mixed one, but it was clear that the plain tiff’s name had not been disclosed. They therefore gave judgment for ; tho defendant '.with costs, £1 6.
