AUCKLAND DISTRICT COURT. Monday.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXII, Issue 2807, 25 July 1866, Page 5

AUCKLAND DISTRICT COURT. Monday.

[Before hit Honor Mr. Judge Beckham,] The third sitting of the District Court was held on Monday morning last, at half-past ten o'clock.

THOMAS W. POLTON Y. JOHN BEATON. Claim, £39_45. for goods. Mr. Keetley appeared for plaintiff, who proved the correctness of the claim. Judgment was given for the amount claimed.

JOHN ANDERSON Y. THOMAS SHAND. This was an action for damages ; amount, £50. Mr. Wynn appeared for plaintiff, who was absent, and asked for an adjournment. The case was adjourned until the next sitting of " the Court on that day three weeks.

PREDEBICK GEOROJS CLAYTON Y. WALTER DUBLBT. This was an action for £39 ss. 9d., fees due plaintiff, lessee of the Slaughterhouse, Newmarket, for slaughtering cattle, sheep, and pigs at the Public Slaughter-house, and for work and labour done in killing them. Mr. MacCormick appeared for plaintiff. Mr. Beveridge appeared for defendant. | The plaintiff and Robert Snedden proved the claim. Mr. Beveridge -was about to cross-examine Snedden, when Mr. MacCormick stated that he could not do so, inasmuch as he had not filed a defence. If lie did so, it would be an evasion of the rule of the Court. His Honor said every defence must be filed. All the plaintiff in a case had to do was to swear^as to the facts contained in the declaration, and his case was proved. i Mr. Wynn hoped the point was settledjthat, where a defence was not tiled, the plaiutiff was considered to have made out a prima facie case if his declaration was good. His Honor repeated that the defence must be filed ; and of course the declaration must be good. Judgment was given for plaintiff.

DEFENDED CASES. HJ(B«N, KIDD, AND SEFFERN Y. HENRY DB BDRGH ADAMS AND CAPTAIN REEVE. Claim, £28 16s. 2d., for advertising Auckland Military Races, in 1864. Mr. Keetley appeared for*plaintiff. Messrs. Bevendge and Wynn appeared for Mr. Adams ; and Mr. Gillies appeared for Captain Reeve. William Henry John Seffern deposed :' I was one of tlie firm of Heron, Kidd, and Seffern, publishers of the Neio-Zealander newspaper. The Auckland military races were advertised sixteen times in the paper. The advertisement was headed, " Eacea to come off." The fhst appeared on August 31, 1864. It was continued until the 18th of September, ■when there was a programme published of the three dayj>' racing. " There were twp advertisements of auction, &c, on the 7th September, which were repeated ou> the Sfch, 9bh, and 10th. The order for the advertisements was sent up from the Cross. I produce the original order from the Cross. I don't know the handwriting of the order. We naturally thought the managing committee would payHenry De Burgh Adams deposed : It appears I am one of the defendants. 1 don't know that this is Captain Toogood's handwriting to this paper (copy of advertisement). I cannot swear that this is his signature. There is a Mr. Toogood, a captain of the Royal Artillery, in India _He was in Auckland at that time. 1 believe he styled himself secretary. I was not one of ths committee. I was judge of the course. I had nothing more to do with the races but act as judge at the races. If my name was put down as on the committee, it was without my knowledge. I did not see my name until today. I took no interest in the paper, and never read them. Captain Maxwell Reeve deposed : T am a captain in the Military Train. I recollect the Auckland Military Races of 1864. I was one of the committee of management for those races. I don't know Captain Toogood. Lieutenant Toogood was on the committee of management of those races. I did not authorise the printing of any advertisements. There was no authority to the JSFeio-Zealander newspaper to advertise anything connected with the races. Lieutenant Toogood was not authorised, and I believe never gave any authority. Authority was not given to the different papers. If they did so, it was at their own cost. They could not afford to advertise in all the papers. It was only on reference to the committee that anything could be done. Lieutenant Toogood only left a few months ago, and why was this ucatter not brought on before now ? If Lieutenant Toogood sent the notices to the NewZecdander newspaper, it was at his own risk. Mr. Keetley here said he must accept a nonsuit. A nonsnit was recorded.

FBEOEBIOK WILLIAM PARKKR Y. HB^KT BICHARDS. This was a claim for £50 damages against the' defendant, as bailiff of the Resident Magistrate's <3ourfc, for seizing the property of the plaintiff, under the impression that it belonged to another person. Mr. Brookfield appeared for plaintiff; and Mr. Gillies for defendant. Mr. Brookfield briefly stated plaintiff's case. Frederick William Parker deposed : lam a carter residing in Auckland. On 16fch June last I was the owner of a bay draught horse and harness. I had been the owner of it since 31st March. (Receipt produced.) This receipt was given me for the horse on that date. I paid Spittle, from whom I bought the horse, £40, on that day. The horse was always in my possession up to the .day of the seizure. On 16th 'rune, Richards seized it as bailiff of the Resident Magistrate's Court. I have not since had possession of the horse and harness. I served a notice on the bailiff claiming the horse and harness as mine. The value of the horse and harness was' £28. Cross-examined : When the bailiff seized I produced receipt and also my license. I did not produce a receipt dated 17th March. I lodged in Spittle's house for eighteen months. He had the horse about two or three months before I bought it. I was employed by McNeill, who sold the horse to Spittle. I worked hard for the £40 I paid to Spittle. I did not tell Garithy that the horse belongedto Spittle. lengaged Garithy to drive the horse, which was then kept in Spittle's yard. I afterwards got a stable in Albert-street. The stable was not hired in Spittle's name. I paid Spittle £1 per week for board and lodging. I did not authorise Spittle to sell' the horse: I tried to sell the horse several times by public sale. Mason also took him to try to get him sold. The hors& waa a " jibber." Re-examined : Spittle had nothing to do with the horse after the 31st March. Charles Spittle deposed : I was a carter, and contractor. (Receipt produced.) This bears my signature. On the day mentioned I received £40 from Parker, I was then confined to bed through an accident. I parted with the ownership on that day, 31st March. It was a bona fide sale. I never afterwards exercised owneiship of the horse and harness. I never afterwards attempted to sell the horse. £28 would be a fair value for the horse and harness now. Cross-examined : I signed the receipt on the day mentioned. I never had cards printed " Spittle and Parker, carters." Parker never owed me for board, and I never itated that he did. I paid McNeill £20 for the horse. I never authorised Mason to sell the horse. This closed plaintiff's case. John Garithy deposed : I was a carter, and was engaged driving the horse in question. I was employed by Parker. I gob wages from Parker, and 2-t. once from Spittle when Parker was not in. - On 28th April Parker told me the horse belonged to him. 1 wonld not swear whether it was Parker or Spittle owned the horse. I received ordera from both of them up to the time of the seizure. Henry Mason deposed : lam a horse-breaker. I know the horse in question. I was told to sell the horse for £30 by Mr. Spittle. I took Idm to Huntvr'ji yard on 2nd June,

\ Parker was present wneu I got the horse. P.ukei said they would give me 15s for eveiy £10 I gob for the horse. I lefused it, and Spittle ~aid lie would give me £2. Parker did not say Hint the horse belonged to him. Paiker did not engage mo to work the horse. Cross-examined : Parker paid mo £1 on account of training the horse. This receipb refers to the horse in dispute, and bears my name. Thomas Brown deposed : I am one of the bailiffs who seized the horse. Parker claimed the hoise when we had it iv Hunter's yard about threequarters of an hour afterwards. He came back a second time, and produced a receipt. (Receipt produced.) It was not dated the same as this receipt. The particulars were net the same. ' Eoberfc Clifford deposed : I am one of the assistant bailiffs who seized the horse. This receipt is not like the one produced by P.irker. The horse and harness were sold by Hunter for £10. R.chard Farrell deposed :* I was present in Hunter's yard when Parker produced a receipt to tbe bailiffs. This is not the receipt. This closed the defendant's case. Mr. Gdlies addressed tho Court on the evidence. Mr. Brookfield replied. His Honor reierved his decision until next courtday. 1 ,

PHILIP AARON PHILIPS*" Y. WILLIAM JAMES MARKS. This was an action brought to recover the sum of £27 12b. 9d., for goods alleged to be sold and delivered to defendant. Mr. Wynn appeared for plaintiff; and Mr. Brookfield for defendant. Mr. Wynn stated plaintiff's case. The defence was that the^ plaintiff did not deliver the goods mentioned in the particulars ; that the defendant ordered the closets complete, and those alleged to be delivered were incomplete ; that the closets were in bad order and condition, and useless to tbe defendant ; and that the prices are not such as agreed upon, and not fair and reasonable. P. A. Philips deposed : I am the plaintiff, and reside in Shortland-street. lam an importer. The defendant came to my place of business some time in May. My nephew told me ttiat Mr. Marks^had given me an order for four ship's closets. I took" the order from my nephew. (Paper produced.) This is a copy of the original order, which has been misplaced. I remarked at the time that there was no limit to the order. Marks said, "No, I must have them. " I immediately ordered the closets from my agent in Sydney, with other goods. They came in due course, and were delivered. I charged the invoice cost and the freight, commission, &o. I paid the -freight, duty, cartage, &c. I charged 5 per cent, commission. There were other charges which I have not charged defendant. The prices charged are fair and reasonable. • This is the invoice of the goods. Cross-examined : I did not see an order written by Marks. £ have not seen the closets. They were returned to me a day or two after delivery by Mark?; He said they were incomplete, imperfect, and he would not have them. Mr, Craig told me that they wanted the sl;op-cocks. I would consider them complete without the stop-cocks as ship's closets. The defendant did not give a written order to my knowledge. He had no conversation with me about the price. Charles Philip Philips deposed : I am plaintiff's nephew, and his assistant in the store. In May last defendant came and wished plaintiff to order four ship's closets with deck plates, from Sydney. I took a note of the order. I don't know what has become of it. Thi3 is a copy of the order given. My tmcle came into the store, and I informed him of Mr. Marks's order, and showed the note I had taken of it. I believe the order went to Sydney in due ceurse. I recollect the goods arriving with otlur goods. I unpacked them. I saw them delivered at Mr. Marks's place on or about the 2Sth June. I saw Marks later in the day, when he said they were not sound, and complained of the price. None of the pans were .broken. One of the pans was loose from the solder. Cross-examined : I don't know what a stop-cock is. A man named Foster told me there was some breakage. I wrote this copy of the order. I will not swear that the word "complete" was' not on the order. James Boulston, express -diiver, deposed to having carted the goods iii question to Mr. Marks's premises. This closed the plaintiff's case. "William James Marks deposed : I am a plumber. In June l»st I ordered four water-closets from Mr. Philips. I asked the plaintiff, if a water-closet cost 30s. or £2 in England, what it would cost delivered in Auckland from Sydney. /We said about "70s. or £4. He thought they could be had at double the cost in England. I wrote an order for four ship's water-closets, with deck-plate, complete. In due time certain closets were delivered at my store. They were not in good order, being more or less damaged. They were not complete,, and could not be used. They had neither valves nor cocks. In their present state they are perfectly useless. 1 cannot get tbe valves or cocks in Auckland. I showed the closets to Mr. Vialou and Mr.. Craig. Charles Philips said he considered the closets sound, with the exception of a little breakage, which I could make right. I afterwards sent the goods back. They were returned to me again. Cross-examined : One of the closets was uninjured} but not complete. I wrote the order.myself, in the shop in Queen-street. I can't say by whom the closets were broken. I would not have objected to them if they bail not been fractured. Isaac R. "Vaitou deposed : I was culled upon by Mr. Marks to examine four water-closets. I know the construction of such articles thoroughly. They are incomplete, inasmuch as they require cocks. They could not be used as ship's closets without cocks. I should think" cocks could not be obtained here. Two of the closets were broken or cracked, and two sound, with the exception of one not soldered. If complete they could be had in Engand for £2 15s. # Cross-examined : I was originally apprenticed to a plumber, and understand the business thoroughly. The difference in value of closets with or without cocks would be 12s 6d. each. Francis Foster deposed : I am foreman to Mr. Marks. I saw the closets after they had been delivered. 1 hey were more or less damaged. They are of no use without the valve and cock. Andrew Craig gave corroborative evidence. This closed defendant's case. Mr, Wynn here said that he would take a nonsuit. A nonsuit was recorded. This terminated the business before the Court.