HAWERA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume II, Issue 125, 25 June 1881, Page 3

HAWERA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thursday, June 23. (Before C. A. Wray, Esq., E.M.) CIVIL OASES.

W. Prosser y. F. Bailey.— Claim, £30. This was a suit for the return of a horse cold by W. Stannard to W. Prosser, and afterwards re-sold by Stannard to Frank Bailey. His Worship gave judgment to the following effect : — It appeared to him that the main question at issue was whether there had been evidence of a complete contract of sale or not. Taking into consideration the fact that it had been shown that the horse passed immediately into the possesion of Prosser after its sale by Stannard, and that the latter had accepted payment and given a receipt in full, he considered that the sale was undoubted. It had only been shown on the other side, that under certain circumstances which never happened, the horse might have been given back by Prosser to the vendor. It was again contended that possession was again given to Stannard by Prosser when the former obtained permission to lead the horse off to grass. But it appeared that at this time Stannard was simply acting as the servant or agent for W. Prosser. The Magistrate quoted authorities showing that where a livery-stable-keeper had sold a horse, and the purchaser had stipulated at the time of the sale that the horse was to be kept at livery by the vendor for the buyer, it had been held that the mere transfer of the horse from the livery to the sale stables of the seller was sufficient to complete the contract for sale. That the owner had thereby given delivery and relinquished possession, and only held the animal in custody for its new owner. He was of opinion that no right of re-sale had been given to Stannard, when he took the horse with the avowed intention of leading it away for W. Prosser to a paddock of Messrs. Wilson's. Judgment would be for a return of the horse or its value, £18 10s., and costs. The claim for damages would not be allowed.

McGregor v. Vine. — Case adjourned by order of Court, to enable a full statement of accounts to be prepared. Baird v. Haase.— Claim £15. Plaintiff sued defendant on a promissory note, dishonored. The note was due on April 30, 1681. Judgment by default for amount, and costs.

E^)«a<3 r. W«ek — Oiaun for M Bb. 4d., goods supplied. A letter was read from defendant, asking for a month's grace. Judgment by default for amount, and costs.

Same v. Morrison.— Claim for £1 10s., on a provisory note, dishonored. Judgment for plaintiff for amount, and costs. Beresford v. Dogberty.— Clain for £6 18s. Bd., goods supplied. Judgment by default for amount, and costs.

Same v. Emmerton.— Claim for £8 2s. lid., balance of account. Judgment by default for amount, and costs.

Same v. Briggs. — Claim for £15 10s. Mr. Ward for defendant, who pleaded not indebted. Mr. Parrington for plaintiff. The latter explained that a joint account had been carried on between Briggs and Ottaway. — This was a lengthy and intricate case of private and joint accounts between plaintiff and Ottaway and Briggs. It appeared that an order had been given to Beresford, by which L. Wylie— who was called, and had been employing both Briggs and Ottaway— was authorised to pay to Mr. Beresford all wages due to the partners. Defendant disputed a number of items, which were allowed. Judgment was given for £11 7s. 8d M and costs, including solicitor's fee.

Same v. Ottaway. — Claim, £24 11s. 6d. Mr. Ward for defendant ; Mr. Parrington for plaintiff. Defendant pleaded that he did not wish to deny the debt, having had had the goods, but considered it was Mr. Wylie's duty to pay the amount, as he was responsible for the goods supplied. — Mr. Beresford stated that defendant and his mate did not earn the money for their contract, and did not complete their work. — Defendant gave evidence that lie had to "jack" up his contract, and had to lose 60 per cent, of his money. His wrist failed him, and he had to give up his work. He understood Mr. Wylie was responsible. Did not know what had become of the balance due for work done. —Judgment for amount, and costs. Same v. Conolly.— Claim £Q 17s. lOd. Claim admitted. Judgment for amount and costs.

Domingo v. Glenn.— Claim for £1 10s. Judgment for plaintiff by default for amount, and costs.

Same v. Mclnnoney.— Claim for _6 165. Judgment for amount, and costs.

APPOINTMENT OP A BAILIFF.

Before the Court rose, the Resident Magistrate addressed the Benoh on the subject of the appointment of a bailiff. He stated that ever since the last sitting of the Court, he had been in correspondence with the Under-Secretary for Justice, Mr. Fountain, and although it had been at first intimated to him that no poundage fees could be granted, on his representing that otherwise a salary would have to be given if a suitable man were to be procured, he had since been informed that poundage fees might be allowed for a time, until it could be ascertained what they ■would be worth on an average, when a salary would be granted to cover that amount. Of course., . the poundage fees would then again revert to the Government. Unfortunately, owing to the correspondence having been carried on by telegraph, a misconception had crept into the discussion, and the Department now wrote as though the bailiff were only to execute warrants, &c, and were not*also to serve all summonses and charge mileages where such were due. The E.M. had hoped to have had this error rectified, and the appointment of Mr. Jacomb confirmed, before yesterday's sitting of the Court; but regretted to say that he would be unable to do so. — From what he had said, it would be seen that there was every probability of a suitable appointmentbeing made on terms similar to those at first suggested. Mr. Parrington thanked the Bench on behalf of the bar. The Court -then adjourned.