RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.
ASHBURTON.— To-day. (Before His the Mayor and Mi Thomas J.p.) Breaches of Borough Bv-x IW3 , —R Friedlander was charged with allowing t horse to roam at large. Fined ss.—M Nealas was charged with a’lowing a oov to stray in Cass street. Fined 10s. CIVIL CASES. Bond v. Cashmere. —Claim LI 'ss Judgment for plaintiff, with costs. Murdoch v. Pullar. Claim" L 4 'ss Judgment for plaintiff, with costs. G. M. Robinson v. I. Osborne.—Clain L sls 6d. Mr Crisp for plaintiff. In this case the plaintiff sued the assignee of the book debts of Mr Begg. Judgment foi plaintiff, with costs. Compton v. Abraham. —Claim, L2. Mi Branson for plaintiff, Mr Parnell for' de fendant. This was a claim for damage tc a “ sulky ” —a broken shaft. The plaintiff was non-suited. Tuck v. Biggs and Reid.—Claim LE 14s 9d. Mr Purnell for plaintiff, Mi Branson for defendants. Mr Purnell said that the short facts of the case were that the plaintiff had contracted to take 30C dozen eggs from Messrs Biggs anil Reid, of Tinwald, at 7£d per dozen. Nothing was said about payment at the time, but ' the eggs were to lie delivered to defendant, and as a matter of fact, they were taken to the railway station. Subsequently plaintiff saw one of the defendants at Christchurch, and was toll the : eggs were at the railway station.. Something was said about payment. Plaiotiff said “ I have sent a cheque to Tinwald, but if you like I will give you a cheque now.” The defendant to whom ho spoke, said “Never mind. ” The eggs, however, were not delivered as promised, and pi .intiff had to buy 303 dozen at Is per dozen, and the present claim was for the loss sustained. —George Bond, Christchurch, said he was employed by the plaintiff to procure eggs for him. Saw Mr Reid, ot -the firm of Biggs and Reid, at Tinwald. Witness went to the store and said “ I believe you have some eggs ?” Mr Reid said he had, and a bargain was struck for 7£d per dozen. Mr Reid said he could supply 500 dozen, but next day said he'.could supply 700 doz. He said the esgs would be I on the railway on the following: morning. Walter Biggs said he was a member of the firm of Biggs and Reid. The eggs in question were bought of his partner. Had seen Mr Tuck in Christchurch. He had offered no cheque that witness could remember.—Reid, of Biggs and Reid, said that the original contract was for 500 dozen at 7|d per do?en. Witness prepared 306 dozen eggs. There yas no further agreement. Cash wws to be paid" before delivery. Had received no payment for the eggs, which ha<J been kept from the Thursday to the Saturday for plaintiff, and were then sold to another customer at lOd per dozen. If a cheque had been forwarded witness would have delivered the eggs as desired. —Walter Rond (re-called) said that he had made no stipulation as to the quantity of eggs to be supplied when he visited the defendants’ store. He wanted as many as he could get. The Bench decided to give judgment for L 3 2s lid, without costs. The Oourr, then rose.
Permanent link to this item
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT., Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 807, 1 December 1882
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 807, 1 December 1882
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.