RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 8730, 23 January 1892, Page 2 (Supplement)

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Fkiday, Januaby 22,

(Before E, B. Carew, Esq., R.M.)

R. Jamieson and Co, v. W. A. Hobbs (Timarn).—Claim, L 5 7s Bd, on a promissory note.—Judgment by default. James Fox v. Alex. Palmer.—Claim, Ll9 Oj 3d, for coal supplied. Mr Maodonald for plaintiff and Mr Solomon for defendant, who paid Ll6 12s 3d into Court.—Mr Macdonald said that what His Worship had to deoide was whether certain coal, supplied on the 3rd September and on the 2nd Ootober, should be charged at 32s 6d or 23b per ton. The loot item in the bill was a charge of 28 3, and defendant paid that price. Plaintiff alleged that the coal supplied on the two first occasions was screened, and defendant said that it was unsoreened. It would be proved by the men in plaintiffs employment that the coal was screened. Positive evidence of that kind was more reliable than the speculative evidence which he understood was to be called on the other side.— Captain Fox, plaintiff, said that he supplied this coal to Mr Palmer on the dates mentioned. Heard the first complaint about the 13th October. Mr Palmer said that a man had offered to supply the same class of coal at 28s; that he could not afford to pay witness more than anyone else; that the man who made the offer said he would supply the same class of ooal (unsoreened coal) at 28s. Witness said he supposed he wculd have to fall in with the same price, but y«t his men had instructions to fend tcreened coal, and he (witness) had every reason to believe that the coal sent was screened. Witness went and saw the coal. It lay in a heap like a sugar loaf, and a good deal of the larger coal on the outside bad been removed. It was soft coal, and had been shot down about 7ft. Every time it was shifted it wpuld break. The first of the conversation was that Mr Palmer said he could get screened coal for 80a, and unsoreened coal for 28?, and witness said that they would not fa|l out about it. On the 3rd September the selling price of screened Newcastle coal was 32s BJ, ftnd unecreened coal 2i a ton less. When coal is ordered the practice is to send screened unless specially ordered. On the 2nd Ootober the prices were the same. On the 6th November witness reduced the price to 283, and that was the price when the third lot was sent on the 10th November. Had no complaint till the 13h October. To Mr Solomon: Did not remember eelling unsoreened coal when the price for screened coal was 324 0.1. —John Gibb, yardman for Captain Fox, said that the coal supplied to Mr Palmer on the 30th September was screened Newcastle. Witness screened the major part of it himself. The order on the 2nd October was supplied with screened coal. Witness went to look at the coal complained of, and saw that it was screened coal. Beiog soft coal, it raado more dust and email stuff every time it was handled, and a Bhovel i going into it would affect it.—John Docherty (carter) and Walter Miller (clerk) also gave evidence.—Jameß Gibson said that the price of screened Newcastle coal on the 3rd September and on the 2nd October was 32s Gd, and for unscreened 2* less. If screened coal were dropped 7ft or Bft into a cellar, the drop would not have much effeot on it. To the Bsnch : There would be some breakage from the drop, but an unbiassed and competent man could not mistake such coal, if screened, for unscreened.—Mr Solomon then opened the defence at 'ength. Defendant's contention was that the coal was not screened, and that, if it was ecreened, it was cot bo in the sense in which the term was jised when coal was sold. Screened coal was coal from which dust and dross had been Defendant and his men would tell His Worship that when the coal was brought it had a large quantity of dross in it. He (Mr Solomon) would also draw attention to this: that when plaintiff was challenged about the coil he did not say directly to Mr Palmer that it was screened, but simply that he believed it was; and, further, that Mr Miller had admitted that the coal was unscreened, and that Captain Fox had offered to take a less price for it.—Alex. Palmer, licensee of Wain's Hotel, said that he always ordered screened coal. The last three lots were full of dross when brought in. Witness complained through the telephone to Mr Miller that the coal was not what it ought to be. Had complained several times. Mr Griffin saw the coal, and witness then drew Mr Miller's attention to it. That was in regard to the October lot. Mr Miller admitted that it was unscreened, and said it was sent by mistake. To Mr Macdcnald : Witness was induced to give orders to the Grey Valley Company's traveller (Mr Griffin). After Mr Griffin had seen plaintiff's coal he said it was unscreened. Had not given up dealing with plaintiff, because plaintiff was a customer of the hotel.—John Griffin, traveller for the Grey Valley Company, said that he saw the coal supplied by plaintiff, and did not consider it to be screened. —To Mr Macdona'd: A proper screen should have a gauge of an inch and a half, but witness would not be surprised to hear that a threequarter inoh gauge was the only one commonly used.—Peter M'Ardle, manager of the Grey Valley Company, said that coal could be imperfectly Boreened—put over a screen without removing the dross.—James Brown, porter at Wain's, said that the coal delivered did not seem to be screened—there was as much dross as coal.—William Robins, cook at Wain's, said that the coal supplied during the last four or live months contained a large quantity of dross. It waß three or four days before he got to the dross. Never saw screened coal with so much dross. Could not burn this coal in a Leamington range. When Mr Miller went into tbe cellar he said: " That's not screened coal." Witness replied that that was how they usually got it.— Henry Schaper (second cook at Wain's) also gave evidence.—His Worship gave judgment as follows: The opinion I have come to upon the evidence is that it was neither, etrictly speaking, screened nor unscreened ooal. It was coal that had been screened, but not so as to remove all the dross from it. I think defendant is entitled to a reduction of 2* per ton upon the two lots in dispute, Judgment will be for Ll7 18i lOd, less Ll6 12) 33, or LI 6s 7d upon the claim, with L 4 costs.