RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GREYMOUTH.

Grey River Argus, Volume XI, Issue 893, 7 June 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GREYMOUTH.

Tuesday, June 6. (Before W. H. Revell, Esq., R.M.)

CIVIL CASES.

Borough Council v. D. Maclean and Co. — His Worship gave judgment in this case, which was heard on Thursday last. He said this was an action to recover LlB 17s lOd of warfage due 3 charged for landing stock within the limits of the Borough. The single point for him to decide was whether the place used for landing the oattle was a wharf within the meaning of the Act. Formerly, under the Marine Act, the definition of a quay was a place used for the landing of goods or passengers, within any port the appointment of which was not otherwise provided for by law. Before the County of Westland Act cameinto force that point cf the river bank was a wharf, and on the passing of that Act, all the wharves and quays were transferred to the control of the Borough Council, who had power to make regulations for them. The legal definition of a wharf was an open place near some creek or haven to lay goods on which are brought across water. Taking that with the original definition given by the Marine Act, he musl consider the place where the cattle were landed to be a wharf, and judgment would be for the plaintiff with costs. On the application of Mr Newton leave was granted to appeal. Gardiner Davidson v. Smith. — Judgment by default for L 5 cash lent. The Grey Valley Tramway Company (Limited) v. M. Darcey, Twelve-mile. — A claim of L 2 10s, amount of a call of 5s on 10 shares. Judgment by default for the amount and costs. Mayor and Corporation of the Borough v. Hudson. — Claim of LI for rates. Judgment by default with costs. Same v. J. Sharp.— Judgment confessed for 10s for rates, to be paid within a week, or one month's imprisonment. Glenn Bros. v. Miner. — Judgment by default for Ll3 Is lid for goods supplied. The Grey Valley Tramway Company (Limited) v. Thomas Brassell. — Claim of L 5, being a call of 5s per share on 20 shares. — Mr Guinness appeared for the plaintiffs, and. Mr Perkins for the defendant. The usual preliminaries of such cases were proved, and a proxy was produced signed by the defendant, authorising A. Montgomery to vote for him at a meeting of the company. — Mr Perkins moved for a non-suit, on the grounds that the call was badly made, and that the service of the required notice of the call had not been properly proved. - Mr Guinness j called this a frivolous and technical objection, and as the defendant did not appear personally to give evidence, he asked that the case should be proceeded with on the bond fides. — Mr Perkins declined to waive the grounds taken, as the shareholders were scattered over such a large extent of country, and due notice must be insisted on. — The Magistrate said that as no special days were fixed for the meetings of the directors, the most ample notice should be insisted od, so that these upcountry shareholders could have every opportunity of being present. The nonsuit would be granted. The Grey Valley Tramway Company (Limited) v. E. Elward. — A claim of 5s per share on 10 shares in the company. — Mr Guinness for the plaintiffs, and Mr Newton for the defence.— ln this case the notice of the making of the call was left by Montgomery, on a Sunday, at Ross's house, at the foot of Nelson Creek, for Heslop to take across the street to Elward on the Monday. He believed Heslop delivered it. On the service of the next notice, Montgomery asked for payment of the previous call, when Elward said his money was ready when the other shareholders were made to pay up. — J. W. Ross said he remembered fa letter being left by Montgomery on a Sunday for Elward, and on Monday it was given to Heslop, with instructions to deliver it. Elward's was within a chain of his house. —Mr Guinness asked for an adjournment in order to produce Heslop, as he had been misled by his instructions. — The Magistrate could not grant an adjournment on such grounds. Mr Newton moved for a nonsuit on three grounds — Ist. The directors were not validly appointed; 2nd. This call was not duly made ; and 3rd. No due notice of this call had been given to the defendant. He argued these points at considerable length, and was ably replied to by Mr Guinness, who remarked that the defence was merely technical, and it was plain that if the defendants in these cases had good defences they would have been present at the hearing. The Magistrate said that as the

company came before him, every new phase showed fresh irregularities as to the formation of the company. He would grant the nonsuit. The Giey River Steam Tug Company (Limited) v. J. A. Bonar. —Claim of L6l 10s, for towage of the schooner Isabella. Mr Perkins appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Harvey, of Hokitika, for the defendant. It was admitted by the defendant that the work was done, and that the amount charged was the correct sum chargeable for the work; and for *he plaintiffs it was admitted that tho defendant was the owner of the Isabel la; that a month and seven days lapsed before the demand was made on the defendant; and that, in the meantime, the cargo had been received by the agent, and the vessel had left the port.—G. W. Moss, manager' of the tug Dispatch, said he remembered her towing in the schooner Isabella, Capt. Priest. He obtained the master's acknowledgment, and at the end of the month he delivered the account at the office of Mr D. Gird wood, made out in the name of the captain and owners of the Isabella. He again called about the 17 eh April, when he was told to send the account to Mr Bonar, which he did. The Isabella was charged in the books of the company for the amount of the tonnage, both in and out. He made the demand on Mr Bonar on the 17th, and received a reply dated the 18th. He wrote again on the 22nd, and received a reply from Mr Bona« on the 24th. On the following day he again wrote, but received no reply. Since then he had received a telegram, which was put in ; and on the 14th May he replied by letter. He saw Mr Bonar in Hokitika, and he declined to pay the amount, so that these proceedings had to be taken. Cross-examined: Had previously towed in the vessel, and Mr Bonar had paid the tonnage twice, and Mr Girdwood twice. The last two charges were paid by Mr Bonar, but were by special agreement for small rates for coal cargos. There waa some disagreement as to these settlements. On the occasion in question she was freighted with general merchandise, and Mr Girdwood has told me that a portion of it came to him. It is not the universal practice that consignees of* cargos who are at the same time agents of vessels should always pay the towage ; I have frequently arranged with the cap*r in ™ He was not aware wheu *he okim on Mr Bonar was made that the agent Had charged this amount against the owner. It was some weeks after he made the application to Mr Bonar that he heard Mr Girdwood was endeavoring to compound with his creditors. Mr Girdwood told him he would pay "if he was in funds " but afterwards told him to apply to Mr Bonar. He understood that Mr Girdwood meant if he had funds belonging to Mr Bonar in band. Re-examined: On S e 2?° Previo °s occasions when Mr Bonar paid the towage, the account was rendered in same form as this one. This was the plaintiff's case. Mr Harvey said the defence was merely a point of law. Mr Bonar did not dispute that he was the owner of the vessel, that the work was done, or that the amount claimed was not the ordinary charge. The payment of this Amount would be a hardship on Mr Bonar, because he had already paid it. He defended the action on the ground that the plaintiffs, well knowing that Mr Bonar was the owner of the vessel, chose to debit this amonnt to the agent, Mr Girdwood, and having done that, and the state of the account bet ween them having been prejudiced by that act, the plaintiffs could not turn round now and say, "because Girdwood will not pay, you must." He quoted a number of cases in support of his argument, and called Mr J. A. Bonar, who said: I am owner of the schooner Isabella. On the 18th April-1 received a letter from Mr Moss demanding payment of certain towage. Previously by agreement two special arrangements had been paid by me for coal cargoes ; probably Mr Girdwood paid forto wages on her account before that. Prior to the 17th April he received an account-current from his agent (whioh was produced) showing that the amount of towage now sued for was charged against the Isabella. If he had known that he was debited with the amount by the Tug Company, he might have saved it from the agent's accounts. He never contemplated that the amount had not been paid. If he.had known that he was to be charged with the towage he could have recovered it out of the proceeds of the cargo. This was the case for the defendant. After a long legal argument, the Magistrate said the Tug Company had never made the agent the principal in the transaction, as the captain and owners had always been charged in the accounts rendered. Judgment for the amount claimed and costs.

(For continuation 0/ JSews see 4(h Page.)