MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXV, Issue 1697, 25 May 1866, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

—♦ — CHRISTCHURCH. Wednesday, Mat 23, 1866. (Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., E.M.) Isaac Witherden was charged with having been drunk and incapable. The prisoner, who admitted the offence, and who had been locked up during the whole of the previous evening, was discharged with a caution, it being his first appearance beforo the Bench. CIVIL CASKS. H. R Johxstone v. Pabkek.—This was a claim for rent of some premises. Mr. harrick appeared for tho plaintiff, who claimed £79 45., for the lease of a piece of ground for oao year, and for breach of covenant by which the defendant had agreed to erect certain buildings upon tho land. The defendant pleaded that the covenant had not been fulfilled, and that he had paid all the rent dotuanded of him to the agent of tho plaintiff, He (the defondant) had not complotod the buildings covenanted to be placed on the land, becauso ho had not been in a position to do so. His Worship reserved his judgment, Low v. Browsell.—This was a claim for £SB 4s 6d, the valuo of wheat purchased by the defendant. Mr. Duncan anpearod for tho plaintiff, and Mr. Garrick for the defendant. The plaintiff stated that he had delivered tho wheat; some of it was accepted by tho defendant and other portions rejected. The whole of the wheat delivered was equal to the sample accepted by tho defondant. Tho claim was for the balance of tho wheat. Some witnesses were examined, who doposotl ai to tho delivery of the wheat and its general quality, ° For tho defence, Mr. Garrick called tho storeman of the defendant, who stated that there was ft gieat difference betwoen the sample shown by tho plaintiftj and tho whoat supplied, Tho difference in value was about Is Gd per bushel. It was agreed that tho bulk of the wheat delivered should bo superior to tho sample as to the dressing, Thosamplo had not beon dressed; it had been merely in tho hand. Witness rejoctcd tho wheat as it wna not equal to samplo; plaintiff admitted that it was not, and offered it at ft lowor price. A witness was called,, who stated that tho whoat, owing to its growing, was not (It for milling purposes; it was only tit for chicken food. He was sum that tho sample was not tho samo wheat as that which had been delivered. bomo othor evidonce was adduced, which tended to show that there was a difference of about one shilling per bushol in the money value of the two kinds of wheat. Tho defendant was called, and stated that the difference in value between the two qualitios of whoat was about Is (Id por bushel; the wheat delivered was by no means equal to sample. He had paid a sum into court, deducting one shilling por bushel, and also tho valuo of 187 corn-sacks retained by the plaintiffs; tho value of the sacks was £lO 7s 3d.

Iho Kesident Magistrate decided that the wheat not bamg equal to sample, judgment must be entered up f or the amount paid into Court, the plaintiff to pay costs,