From Western Post & Mudgee Guardian, September 4, 1861 MARRIED On the first September, at the Wesleyan Parsonage, Mudgee, by the Rev. T ANGWIN, Donald Martin M'LEAN, third son of Mr John M'LEAN, Merri Merri Creek, to Mary Anne, eldest daughter of Mr Henry SMITH, Narroway. SMALL DEBTS COURT Monday, September 2 Before the Police Magistrate, his Worship the Mayor, and Mr MARLAY John BURGESS v H W OLIVER. Mr CLARKE (for TEMPLETON) appeared for defendant and consented to a verdict for plaintiff, the amount being due for bats and ball purchased for the use of the Eastern Cricket Club, of which Mr OLIVER was unfortunately appointed treasurer. DICKSON and BURROWS v M M TWOHY - £6 1s 6d for goods sold and delivered. No return. DICKSON and BURROWS v H P WILSON - £2 10s for goods sold and delivered. Postponed till next sitting. Jacob JULIAN v Bridget LYNCH - £3 8s 11d goods sold. Verdict for plaintiff. John STAHL v WILKINS and GALLATLY - £4 the price of a lathe. Mr CLARKE (for TEMPLETON) for plaintiff. John STAH said he sold the lathe in question about ten weeks since for £4, its real value being £21; he had applied several times for the amount; the last time he threatened to sue them for it. G MULLER proved delivery for the lathe, and having heard one of the defendants say, when asked for the money, that they did not like Court work, and would pay without it. Francis COX gave evidence to the same effect. For the defence, J GALLATLY said that they never actually purchased the lathe; they were in want of one, and told plaintiff that he could bring the one he had for sale for inspection, and if it suited them they would pay for it. The lathe was brought during his absence and it was still lying in the place where it was left; it was no value, having apparently been made about the commencement of the Christian era. Cross-examined by Mr CLARKE - Mr LYONS had spoken very! highly of the lathe; the late rain had if anything improved it. T WILKINS said neither he nor his partner had agreed to take the lathe; it was merely left for inspection. Verdict for plaintiff. William HAYES v T ISBESTER - £3 reward offered in "Western Post" for a mare which plaintiff found and delivered. Verdict for amount. Martin GRADY and Wife v R HUGHSON - £4 for washing done. Mr CLARKE said the amount was not paid, on account of the washing not having been properly done; however as Mr HUGHSON was from home he would pay the money rather than have such a trumpery affair stand over. Verdict for plaintiff by consent. H R REUBEN v Louisa HUTCHINSON - £4 12s promissory note given by her late husband, William Battley HUTCHINSON. Mr BRODRIBB objected to the information, and the case was adjourned until next sitting to enable Mr REUBENS to amend his plea. R HEARD v S BOWMAN - £7 6s 6d for board and lodging. Mr BRODRIBB for plaintiff. The defendant not appearing, constable KELLY proved the service of summons. BOWMAN said he should have to consult his lawyer about it. R HEARD said the amount claimed was for board, &c., to defendant (the blind man) and his boy, and his two horses; when he presented the account he promised to pay as he obtained a sum of money due to him. Verdict for the amount claimed. C LAMROCK v John SMITH - £3 12s Not served. C LAMROCK v George BURGESS - £7 for mare sold. Verdict for plaintiff. REUBENS v T FOWLER - £4 5s 9d goods sold. Verdict for plaintiff. G HOSKINGS v H TEBBUTT - 10s for work and labour done. G HOSKINS said he had killed and cleaned two pigs for defendant, and had sent in a bill for the usual charge, viz., 5s each. H TEBBUTT said before employing HOSKINS he inquired of him what would be his charge, when he said 2s 6d each. He had paid that amount into Court, having refused the demand, for which he was sued, upon principle. Verdict for the amount paid into Court. H R REUBEN v James KIRKNESS - £7 10s 7d for goods sold. Settled. G HOSKINS v Patrick HOGAN - £3 3s 6d for meat sold. Mr CLARKE (for TEMPLETON) for plaintiff. Mr BRODRIBB for defendant. G HOSKINS said he sold the meat in question to defendant in 1859, at 1 ¾ d. per lb. cash upon delivery; the beef was sent by his orders to DALY, the baker, with a bill, which he did not pay; he consequently now charged him the credit price. A boy of the name of VOWLES proved the delivery of the meat to HOGAN, who, upon taking it out of the cart, said that it had not been properly bled. P HOGAN denied ordering the beef. On the day in question he was looking for a mare he had lost, when HOSKING pointed her out to him; he afterwards asked him if he wanted any meat; he said "No, he had just had a quarter from his son". He then requested him to ask Mr DALY if he wanted any; he (HOGAN) spoke to DALY, who said he would have a quarter. He again saw HOSKING, and the meat was sent to DALY; DALY said he would pay for it, and was still willing to do so. Verdic! t for plaintiff. E CLARKE v WILKINS - £2. Settled. ***END*** N.B. All care has been taken to transcribe the above accurately, however errors may have been inadvertently made. Spelling of names/places should be as appears in original. Transcribed from microfilm available from the State Library. Annette Piper Coolah NSW