BALCLUTHA.

Bruce Herald, Volume IX, Issue 891, 23 March 1877, Page 5

BALCLUTHA.

Wednesday, 21st Mahcii. (Before Mr Carew, R.M.) COLONIAL BANK V. MACDONALD. Claim £89 14s Bd. Mr Reid, who' appeared for the plaintiffs, withdrew the summons, as defendant had settled out of Court. P. HATMAN & CO. V. BAIN. Claim £37 17s 6d. Mr Keid, on behalf of plaintiffs, applied for an adjournment for one. week, which was granted. CLINTON BOAD BOARD V. FITZCLARENCE ROBERTS. Claim £37 for road rates. Mr Henderson for plaiutiff, and Mr D. Reid for defendant. Case adjourned for one week. M'LEAN BROTHERS V. POTTER & DOUJLL. Claim £81 16s. Mr Henderson for plaintiffs, and Mr D. • Reid for defendants. Mr White, plaintiff's manager, stated that about the beginning of February, Mr Petrie put into his hands ten head of cattle for sale ; that he subsequently mentioned the circumstance to Mr Potter, and showed him 'the cattle. Mr Petrie, on 10th February, sold them to the defendant for £80, and that he, on behalf of the plaintiffs, had paid' Mr Petrie that amount according to their usual custom He forwarded in due course a Bill of Exchange

to the defendants for the price of the cattle, but they refused to accept on the grounds that one of the bullocks was not so valuable as Mr Petrie represented to be. They also stated that they did ndt recognise the plaintiffs in the matter, but Mr Petrie. By Mr Reid: The defendants knew that the plaintiffs were only agents, acting for Mr Petrie. An advertisement appeared in the ' Clutha Leader," to the effect that application could be made to the plaintiffs or defendants. The defendants never entered into any negotiations with the defendants about the sale of the cattle. Mr Petrie stated that he sold ten bullocks to defendants for £80, also pair bellows for 255. The cattle had been previously put into the plaintiffs hands for sale. I have since received the cash from the plaintiffs By Mr Reid— l did not request the defendant to pay the plaintiffs the money. I agreed to take an approved bill of exchange from the defendants at three months for the price of the goods sold. The sale took place about the beginning of February. Mr Reid submitted that the plaintiffs must be non-suited on the grounds following . — That there was no priority of contract between the parties to the action. The only party who could sue for the price of the cattle was Mr Petrie. 2nd. Assuming that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, they could not do so in a court for goods sold and delivered. The action ought to be for damages for breach of agreement for not giving an approved bill for the price of the goods sold. Plaintiffs non-suited, £3 9a costs. STEWART V. CARSOXMr Henderson for plaintiff, aud Mr Reid for defendant. Judgment suminous, calling upou defendant to show cause why he should not be committed to prison if he failed to pay a judgment obtained against him by the plaintiff, amounting to £47 12s. After the evidence had been given, the summons was dismissed.