THE COURTS-TODAY.

Evening Star, Issue 7641, 18 June 1888, Page 3

THE COURTS-TODAY.

SUPREME COURT.—CIVIL SITTINGS,

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.) Akkxe v. Braithwaite.—This case was fixod, by agreement, for the 21st inst.

Bowes v. The National Firk and Maiune Insukance Company.—This case was fixed for the 22nd inst. Reeves v. Lane.—Fixed for the 23rd inst. M'Leax v. Elder and others.—Fixed for the 26th iust. Waugh v. Sheeiiy.—Fixed for the 27th inst.

Seegek v. The Union Fikk Insurance Company.—Fixed for the 28th inst. Woods v. Woods.—This snd some other divorce cases will coma on to-morrow. William Bout v. Robert Greic— Claim, L 230 3s 2d, balance of account due for timber supplied. Mr F. K. Chapman (instructed by Messrs Travers and Co., Wellington) appeared for plaintiff; Mr A. Adams for defendant. Mr Chapman stated that the plaintiff was a sawmiller at Featherstone, near Wellington, and the defendant was a timber merchant in Uuncdin. In June last plaintiff contracted to supply defendant with a quantity of totara timber, as detailed in the specifications, at the price of 12s Od per 100 ft super. The timber was all to be heart totara of the best quality and full cut; and as it was , required for Government work it was to be passed by the Government inspector. Such as failed to pass was not to be paid for, while such as passed was to be paid for within ten days of passing. Plaintiff delivered 120,855 ft of timber, but defendant admitted having received 121,632ft —the difference arising doubtless from the two different measurements at Wellington and at Dunedin. Part of the timber—namely, s,49sft—wascondemned by the inspector, and plaintiff replaced it with an equal quantity of good stuff, while defendant subsequently bought the condemned lot at 8s per 100 ft. The value of the timber, independent of this small lot supplied by plaintiff, was L 755 6s Cd, and defendant had paid on account L 525 33 4d, leaving a balance of L 230 3s 2d still due, and which plaintiff now claimed. The defendant admitted that part of the timber was delivered in the terms of the contract, but asserted that a laree quantity was not in accordance with the"contract. • He (counsel) would, however, show that the greater part of the timber passed the inspector, and if necessary be would rely on the fact that the whole of the timber—except the small lot previously alluded to—was accepted by defendant and used.

In his statement of defence the defendant asserted that plaintiff supplied only 35,755 ft of timber which was of the quality, sizes, and measurements specified in the contract; that he supplied 76,605 ft of various measurements and qualities not in accordance with the contract, and not passed by the inspector; and that the amount already paid by defendant to plaintiff was enough to satisfy the plaintiff's claim.

The defendant also put in a counter claim of L2OO damages, made up as follows :-—He claimed LSO, amount by him as demurrage to the owner of a vessel which was delayed five weeks at Wellington awaiting a cargo of timber which plaintiff had contracted to have ready for shipment on July 7 ; L 29 3s Od, for loss suffered by him through plaintiffs failing to supply the whole of > the timber within the contract time; LI 16 7s, loss sustained by him through plaintiff's not supplying the timber in the sizes and qualities agreed on, whereby defendant was put to great los 3 and expense in making the timber n't and ready to pass the inspector ; and L 4 9s 6d for rabbitting some of the timber at plaintiff's request. Tho plaintiff, in reply to this counter claim, denied that he agreed to have a cargo ready on July 7; also, that defendant had a vessel ready on that date ; also that he (plaintiff) had not a cargo ready on that date. He further averred that he did supply the whole of the timber within the agreed time, and that therefore defendant suffered no such loss or damage as he claimed ; also that he supplied the timber in the sizes and the qualities agreed on ; and also that defendant had done no work at his request. For a further defence the plaintiff said that he and the defendant mutually agreed that the defendant should waive the performance of the Baid agreement, and of any subsequent agreement, to the extent to which the same was or were departed from. In addressing the Court on behalf of the defendant's case, Mr Adams submitted that if there was a contract to supply a certain article, and a different article was supplied, the rule was that the special contract was at an end by the tender, on the part of the vendor, of an article not in accordance with the terms of his eontract, and acceptance of the article by the purchaser formed a new contract, under which he was bound to pay only whatever the goods supplied were worth. Further, if the purchaser had suffered any damage by the failure to supply the goods according to contract, he could recover for that. Counsel submitted that plaintiff's right to recover could be based only on tho contract, and, that having been broken, plaintiff could only recover the price ruling at Dunedin at the time for the goods supplied, which was 9s per 100 ft. Plaintiff gave evidence in support of his claim, while on the other side the defendant, David Connor, George Blyth, Thomas Paterson, James Gilmour, and George Findlay gave evidence. After argument, His Honor gave judgment for plaintiff for L 125 13s Bd, with costs RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.) W. H. H. Carey v. T. Thompson.—Claim, LI 7s Gd. Mr Wilkinson for defendant; Mr Macgregor for plaintiff. Plaintiff sold a watch to defendant for L 6 10s, the latter signing for it. Asher Cohen gave evidence as to defendant placing his mark on the receipt produced. —The defendant admitted having purchased a watch from the plaintiff ahout three years ago, but the price was to have been L 5. He had already paid 2s 6d over that price. He hid no recollection of having signed the receipt produced. He could not write, nor could ho make a mark like that upon the receipt. He afterwards asked plaintiff to take back the watch, because it was "no good."—Defendant's brother, in his evidence, said that tho plaintiff had sold him a watch, but he (the witness) returned the watch, as it was "no good." Plaintiff advised witness to keep the watch, as it was a better one than he (the plaintiff) had sold the witness's brother for L 5. The cost of witness's watch was L 6 10s.—The Bench was of opinion that the balance of the evidence went to show that a sale for LI) 10s had taken place. Cohen's evidence showed that the defendant had signed the ticket. It was generally known how those who did their business in hotels at night went about it. Judgment would be for plaintiff for amount claimed. James Gilmour v. D. M. Stuart.—Claim, Ll6 9s Bd, on a judgment summons. Mr Sim for plaintiff.—Defendant was ordered to pay 25s per month. In the following cases judgment was given by default:—J. A. X. Reidle v. Walter Prince, claim, L 27 17s 6d, balance of hire of piano (Mr O. Hodge for plaintiff); S. Or and Co. v. J. Beaton, claim, L 45 7s 9d (Mr Macgregor for plaintiff).