MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 1932, 27 February 1867, Page 3

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CHEISTCIDECE. ; . Tcesdat, Feb, 26. (Before C, C. Bowen, Esq., E.M.j . . ■■...■ CIVIL,. CASES. The following: cases were undefended, and. judgment,was given for the plaintiffs : Hopkins, v. fiowe; 6amo y. Davis j Gourlay v. .Diibn;'Peacock "y. Faulkner;. Wilson v. Scott; Angus yi;;Morgan; Bame v. long; Ehodes v. Palmer.v Beattiey. Hamilton; .In' Peacock v. W. Patterson, the'wrong man had been summoned, and judgmont was for the defendant, V ".: .The Cut-Cora'c'iL.T. Ciaeks.ok;—This was a suit,forarate. ']}efendan't,.was'' : -tlie. ■owDeroftho -property rated, and : wa3 sued.because the occupier bad left theprovinco. without paying;';: : ■ "■■ ■■Mr;Cpttrell J-: ■ 'F.'Jlaskiris said. Ho. ; :was oi collector of the city rates, and .he produced, the.-rare roll. Captain. Anderson had.occupiedthe property, and had been rated, but ho had left the province, without paying: the rate. Tbo.Cbuhcil had, thercforey fallen baek oh.the owner, .The occupier was gone when application was. made.for the rate. . . ........ Mr Cottrell said, ha did not think'that defend- '. ant was liable. He' was -ii England at.tho time this rate was ievied, and no appTicatioh had been made to him.

His Worship remarked that the occupier, Capt. Anderson, .was in 'Wellington, and thereford within 1 thereaph:of the.courtj.'an'd:-he.thought-.it hardonthoowhersofiana' that'the'y should _be liable to suits in cohsequenceofoccupiersi leaving rates unpaid. But the Council had.tbe power to sue'themi and'-if. .the-collector could' produce'a minute of their election in this case, to sue the defendant, he would proceed to judgment. The collector was unable to produce the: minute, and the case was adjourned for a week. ■■•■ O'Neillv,BuimsiDß.-4ciaimof£s 63 Odfor labour byephtract. .'.:.-■:,; Mr Fereday for'the plaintiff. Plaintiff said he claimed £3 Is for work done, fbi'.defendant at flooring, and £2 6s for breach of contract on the part of defendant. :He (plaintiff) hadentered into a contract with defendant to build two closets for the sum of £2 ss, and- dofendant.nadcontracttd to.findthe materiats for the same; Defendant: had'neglected to fulfil his part of tho contract, by-whi'ch.default plaintiff had been deprived of the means of fulfilling his own part; he therefore claimed the amount which defendant .had contracted to pay him. Defendant did not appear, and, judgment was given.forplaintifffor the full amount. EiraiEi. v.... of .£4 being, the balance on'i;bill"of'exchange for £ll. Defendant abkowledgedthe bill for £ll, but. said he bid paid £8 on account. . ; The. receipt for £8 was produced, He^had.,supplied;'a .lamp, to: Atkinsbn/bfl^^an^understanding; fromi plaintiff that, he. should be paid,£s : for. it j but: Atkinson had: absconded, and he had not been-paid. Defendant denied that he had guaranteed: the, amouhtfor the lamp, but admitted that, £8 might; have been paid on accouit of.the:bhl, .The Magistrate said the guarantee for.thelamp: should have.been in writing.-

Judgment for plaintiff,, £'&. ...-■ . FiitinAM v. Fokd.—Claim of £& Ips, being the balance of the price of a heifer, sole)/by plaint tiff to defendant. Plaintiff said he bad sold the heifer for £l3, and had'received;£Blos on account, : Defendint said he had bought the heifer on a. warratity'.tbat it.was ;in calf; but .'she was iiofc Plaintiff had agreed to take her back if she did. notprove to be in calf, but- now be refused. The heifeivwasn'o't wth'aboye:£7;6r.£B.' Plaintiff denied that, he had warranted the heifer.tb.be in;caif,..or : :hadagreed ; tp take her back if she was not . She.was worth £lB if not in calf. Judgment for plaintiff,; £i los. . Fbabeb y. of £l9 lis, for bread ''sold, and delivered. Mr Joyrit for defendant.. Plaintiff said defendant did not. dispute the account wheni itiwas 'delivered. He. said he would, paythe'first.account .'in a fortnight, He once complamed.of : fch ; e;.quality of the bread. Plaintiffs brother and.a little boy dehyered,the bread. J)e. fendant never returned any, bread; He (plaintiff) admitted the. set-off of defendant. ,:

Mr'Jpyrit said-he disputed the claim generally. Defendant had riot received so. much bread..as had been cbirged.for,and some.ofthe bread ■■was' bad; and besides that tkero was arrangement as.to. the. times.whendefendant should pay the. accounts of plaintiff. . Defendant said he entered into ah arrangement .with plaintiff's; brother for a.aupply of bread, in December last,/on certain..terms 1 of payment. The third thne the bread, came :.up.:;;he!complained that the. .previous, lot wai mouldy.' The, [men: could not eat it, arid the/man was told riot to, brii3g,ariy;more; but hehad broughtirior'e.,He (defendant) offered the yourig:.man' the bad bread and was of opinion that the; brend;had been-inadc of growing floun, He.'also .disputed; the of;breadcharged' for, and the price,of some bis;cuits plaintiff had supplied to him. : Mathew.Mayley. said he was alabourer and had: bought bread of defendant,; some/of: which .was mouldy. He saw bags of mouldy breadiripos-. session bf.defendarif. ■. He gave somo. : that bo had; bought .to; the dogs. It ; turned ■mouldy initio days, but good bread would keep for a week,;. . Jqhnßailey said he lived at Templetoriy and had bought bread of' defendant. It'oftentiirricd bad, It.was mildewed in two days.;'He had seen two | bagsof mildewed 1 bread;in;defendant's store. He mw.tbem'aWu'ffi've'weßte'ago.' ;-.-. . ' Judgment'forplamtiff.filllosfld;. ; ., ■ Voobi v. Hahdsjiak,—Claim of £ls 6s, under tie following circumstances, ; ..-.' ..Mr Cottrell."for.:;plaintiff, : arid .Mr. Wynn ;WilliamV for defendant. i!.V

Plaintiff said he and., defendant bad jointly tor'rowed £25 fromi Henrj AkeiV and then they went .'into'business.-. .Theygave upbusiness six months afterwards, and .got time for payment to;Mr iter. ■. Ha had since. paid'. Mr. Aker, the wholo : £26. Defendant 'had not paid. any..; He: .had. applied'to defendant for. his/shares Defendant had put £2o:intb the Vuaihess. 'When the busii; ;ness was given up he., considered the- 'accounts between him arid defendant had been settled.- ■ ; The defence';was that: plaintiff had received value for the money' ho had paid, and that there had been no settlement of partnership accounts. . His Worship Xaid ;'as : 'there had not been, a .defiuiti.settiemerit of accounts between-the partv ners; he must non-suit the plaintiff. ■

:■:■■■'■ ;,,- . /■..- : TuBSPiT,-i , Bi)^26 ) '.V;'. : .'. "' (Before W.Donald, Esq.; B.ll.) ;'■ "■[ \:CIvrivCASKB.'-, . Names v. Hbß'cßOFi.rSammons ■ withdrawhi Mcl/HLtAS for. one week- m, consotjuerice of defendant being obliged Wgb up country. .:■;.- ': , ; ~/ : -- -y /. FoRBiBB.V. Same.—The 6«mo order was made ■ for affibummentin'tbis case/,;-. , .. : .- ; -Daises v; Ji C. Paton.—Thiswas a claim: for £6 6s account sales of stores' alleged to have .been ! sold by defendant on account of plaintiff. -..: . . Daines sworn; deposed: I was third officer of the ship GlenmarkXOn the 20th January, I asked Mr/Puton toallow me:to send some private stores : onshoreto be jold.:.He gavemo permission to.do, so, and.:includcd them in thefpermitirom.thV Customs with the surplus stores of tho ehip.-Thby were sold by auction on or about January 251 h or: >26th/Aboutaweek after: this I went to defendant and asked him if ho would advance mo : sbmp; mbnoy 'onthe account-saleß. v He-gave me£6, and took my I O'-TJ for it. The defendant camo on board with tho captain some week or two.after? wards. : The captain called me into the cabin,, arid

asked mo what right, 1. hafltosend stores ashore.; I replied that tho stores wero my private property,, and.thatrthoyhad. been shipped on.shoro by per-; ■ mission of tho chief officer, who wis iu command ■at. the time'; Thecaptain theni dia'chargedmo.. I' : asked the. defendant; for .tho proceeds,.and ho declined to givo : thcui iip without an order from tho captain. .„*''<.:';. -V-, ...;..... The Eesident; Mngistratb questioned' tho witness very closely as.to (ho manner in which ho' becamp. possessed of suoli bulky nrtictes .aseasks of ilo'iir, oafmehl, boxes of ■rAisinsii&c. Tlie witness replied 'that, tiio pussehgors had re- ! turned him their rations. Ho called as a witness ; '■-.DayidThomson. wlio deposedV-I-ain'ia...schdoj--master. I'was a passenger by tho Qleninark. I have.returhed stores to pliiinlilT during theyoyiigc,' : consisting of flouiy raains.pickies,'' &e. ' I'gpt ili'o stores. fo? pur mess,-, Tho -passengers-, returned' their lime-juicbtp.tho third rhiite. :■ J;. C. 'Patoii,'.siyorn, " deposed: I produco Woledge.iirid Co.'s account sighed.by tliem,as auctioneers;.- As regards tho stores, tlioy: appeared to ihe to bo: 'surreptitiously obtained during; the absence of the'captain. Our instructions from: Shaw, Saviilo and. Co., arp to soil all.surplus, stores, and place the amount to. their credit; Onmy: :acqiiainting,Capi. Wrankmoioiob his return La; was quite astonished. Ihave'be'en:Bhipping clei-k for soihe years, and never heard of ;anj...officer, of a ship receiving any presents of stores, &e,, for : hii'frivate uso or b'eneßt, ■■■■-..- Thp.Eesiderit Magistrato said ho should adjourn the case till : next..Tuesday, for the evidence; of Copt. Wrankmbre.. Horapapara v, D'owdell;—ln this case, which had been adjourned for-production- of.a veterinary surgeon's, certificate, the. defendant, produced certificate, fi'pm. Mr Hankins, V.S., certifying that: the horse, was afflicted with ringbone. . Tho Eesident Magistrate gave judgment, for .defendant, jvith.lOs costs.