MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 2292, 28 April 1868, Page 3

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH Monday, April 27. (Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M.) CIVIL CABE. Jehson v. Bailey.—A re-hearing was granted in this ease, which was a claim for the value of Borne fire-clay supplied by the plaintiff. Mr r-ottidge appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Garrick for the defendant. The plaintiff stated that at the request of the defendant he supplied him with two cartloads of the clay, in all five tons, at the rate of 15s per ton. Mr Bailey made no objection as to the quality of the clay. The usual price was 30s per ton, delivered in Christchurch. He had sold similar clay to Messrs Newton and Barnes, who expressed their satisfaction with it. The defendant was sworn, and stated that plaintiff offered to let him have a couple of loads. Defendant thought that he was to

have the clay gratuitously, if he sent his dray s, As a fireclay it was perfectly useless. It was of the same value as the ordinary brick-clay of the province, which costs about 5s per ton. Nothing WBB said about the price. His men filled the drays themselves, Defendant offered to pay any charges for his own men. He thought that plaintiff would only charge for the man's time in pointing out the site of the clay. A month passed before plaintiff made a claim upon him. J. Kirk, foreman to Mr J. Anderson, stated that the clay had been tested at the Canterbury Foundry, and that it was entirely useless for any known use to which fire-clay would be applied. A witness gave similar evidence. Mr Nottidge contended that the defendant had taken delivery of the clay, and until the claim was made against him, lie made no objection as to the quality of the clay. Mr Gnrrick replied to the arguments of Mr Nottidge, contending that the evidence shewed that the clay was useless for the intended purposes. Mr Nottidge remarked that he rested his case upon the fact that the defendant had raised his objection as to the quality of the clay too late. Mr Garrick remarked that the defendant had had no opportunity of objecting to the quality of the clay. His Worship said that there were evident defects in the clay, hut on the other hand there was no implied warranty, and the plaintiff had acted with perfect bona fides in the matter. Judgment for £4, the amount claimed, would be given for the plaintiff, with the usual costß. LYTTELTON. (Before F. D. Gibson, Esq., R.M.) Abusive Lakgcage.—G. Plimmer charged with this offence, was fined 5s and costs.