MAGISTRATE’S COURTS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 3568, 25 June 1872, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURTS.

KAIAPOI. Monday, June 24.

(Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., 8.M.. and C. Dudley, Esq.) Boeotjgh By-laws.—Nicholas George, James Kinky, and Joseph Keetley were each charged with a breach of these by-kws by allowing cattle to wander at krge on public streets in the town. The offences were admitted, and a uniform fine of 5s and costs was inflicted in each case. Bobert Thompson was charged with a similar offence, by allowing a cow to stray on the Ohoka road. The defendant denied the charge. Constable Boutledge was called, and he stated that he found the cow upon the street, near Mr White’s brick house, about 9 p.m. on Thursday last. The cow was put into the pound, and the poundkeeper returned the name of the defendant as the person who released it. By defendant.- The cow was not on the road near Harris’ stockyard when I took charge of it. It was on the Ohoka road, as I have already stated. A man named Ben George camp out of the Kaikainui hotel as I was driving the cow down Peraki street to the pound, and turned it back. There was no one on the road when I first took charge of the cow, Benjamin George stated that the constable took the cow off private property. It was not on the Ohoka road when he took charge of it. It was near Harris’ stockyard, eating straw from a dray. He had been watching the cow for some time, and only went into the Kaikainui hotel to light his pipe, during which time the constable took the cow away from the dray. He same out and tried to take the cow away from the constable, as he (witness) considered he had no right to take the cow off private knd. He did not see the constable taking the cow away from the dray, but he saw him immediately afterwards. On cross-examination by the Bench, the witness contradicted this statement, by •saying that he was walking up and down by the front. of the hotel, when he saw the constable going round the dray and driving •the cow away. His Worship cautioned the witness to be more careful in giving his evidence, and not contradict in one breath what he had stated in (jbo previous one. The witness then left the box. Defendant stated that the place where the cow was eating at the dray when the constable, according to the statement of the kst witness, took charge of it was private property. It was kept in repair by the inhabitants, and was rented from the Church Property Trustees at the rate of 15s per acre by Mr J. S- White. His Worship said the argument that the street was private property could have no weight with him, as it was to all intents and purposes a public thoroughfare, and one tliat was as much used any in the town. Ho was content to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt, as it was quite possible that the cow might have strayed to where the constable found it while the witness George was in the hotel. Ho was, however, of opinion that that witness stated rather more than he saw. The cose would be dismissed.

Obstbtjcxino tue Police. —Benjamin Oeorge (the witness in the previous case) was then charged with having obstructed a constable in the execution of his duty on Thursday evening last. Constable Rutledge said he was in the act of driving a cow, which was the matter of dispute in the previous case, to the pound on the evening in question. When passing the Kaikainui Hotel, the defendant rushed out and asked him where he was going with the cow. Witness asked him his name and if ho was the owner of the cow, at the same time informing him that ho would give it up to him if he claimed it and gave his name. The defendant refused to cither let the cow go to tin; pound or give his name, and tried to drive the cow back. Witness then went into the hotel to ask the man’s name, and while ho was doing so, the defendant drove the cow back along the Obokr, road. The constable then told him if he did not give his name, ho would take him along with the cow. Defendant still refused to give his name or allow the cow to go to the pound, and he arrested him and brought him along with the cow. Whoa defendant got as far as Middle-

ton’s Hotel, ho told the- constable bis name. 1 Defendant admitted baying driven the cow back when the constable wan taking it to .the pound, but ho considered ho had a perfect right to do so, as it was taken off private property. He had only had One glass of boor at tho hotel, and know perfectly well what ho was doing. Ho was left in charge of tho cow, and ho did not beliOtC in seeing it driven to the pound. His Worship said tho defendant hod admitted that ho attempted to rescue tho cow, and he would not allow any person to interfere with a constable while in tho execution of his duty. Ho would never overlook ft case of tho kind. Tho present case was not a very serious one, and a fmo of ss, and costs, was inflicted. Defendant: I don’t consider it’s fair to pay for what I have done. His Worship ! Silence, sir, you are liable to a penalty of £lO if I choose to inflict it. The fine wiv) paid.

Puducan’s License.— John Skelton applied for a license for the Oxford Hotel. This was an adjourned case from tho annual licensing meeting to admin of certain repairs being done to tho house. Tho police reported that tho repairs were being carried out, but they wore not yet finished.. Tho Bench said they would grant tho license on tho understanding that tho house was placed in proper repair before tho 14th of July next. If the repairs wore not completed by that time the license would be cancelled. The applicant was cautioned to strictly carry out the conditions of tho Public House Ordinance, and not supply liquor to any person while in a state of intoxication. CIVIL CASES. C. Hetherington v. C. Saxton.—Claim, £22 10s, the value of an I. O. U. The defendant did not appear, and judgment was entered for plaintiff for full amount and costs.

Charles Dudley v. John Elliot.— Claim, £7 I2s. This was an account for the balance of an old judgment and interest. The defendant did not appear, and the plaintiff stated that he had obtained an order of the Court against tho defendant some years ago, calling upon him to pay the debt off at the rate of £1 per month. That order had not been complied with, and he now sued for interest upon the unpaid portion of the claim. If tho defendant would only pay the amount of the debt, he would waive the claim for interest. His Worship said the proceeding was altogether informal, as judgment had already been given for the same claim. An order was also made for tho defendant to pay at the rate of £1 per month, or in default, be imprisoned for a month. The order was still in full force, and the alternative could be enforced at any time. He would have to enter a nonsuit in the present case.

J. Maxwell t. J. Hadeield.—Claim £8 10s. In answer to the Bench, the plaintiff stated that the ironwork named in the account was ordered by a man named Bowmaker. When he (plaintiff) asked him for the money he told him that he was only acting as agent for Hadfleld. Bowmaker did not say that the work was for Hadfleld when he ordered it. Hadfleld never told him (witness) that he would be responsible for the payment of the work done. His Worship said he would have to nonsuit the plaintiff on his own evidence, as it was quite clear that Bowmaker was the person to summons and not the present defendant. The plaintiff was nonsuited and the defendant and a witness were allowed their expenses, amounting to 10s. D. Stackwood v. J. Bosses. —Claim £1 11s, for damage done to plaintiff’s dray. This was an adjourned case from last court day, for the production of further evidence on the part of the plaintiff. The case was that defendant had driven his dray over the swing bridge about twelve months ago, while plaintiff’s dray was going over the bridge. Defendant’s dray came into collision with plaintiff’s, and broke one of the shafts. The account sued for was what the defendant had to pay for the necessary repairs. The evidence went to show that the accident was caused entirely through the act of the defendant, and judgment was entered for the plaintiff for £1 9s and costs. Hutchinson and Co. t. H. Heney.— Claim. £2O 17s fid. The defendant stated that he had paid the amount of the debt into court, with the exception of an item of £5, which the plaintiffs claimed for loss sustained through the non-delivery of some grain he had sold them. He disputed the item of £5, mentioned in’ the account.' The plaintiffs refused to accept the amount paid into court in full satisfaction of the claim. Mr Hutchinson gave evidence to the effect that he had purchased a quantity of wheat and oats from the defendant, some time ago, as per sample, shown at the time of the purchase. He gave the defendant about £ls, as an advance on the grain he had sold him. A portion of the oats were brought down to his store by the defendant, but they were refused* on the ground that the bulk was very much inferior to the sample shown when the sale was effected by the defendant. His storeman, Mr Evans, refused to take delivery of the oats because they were damp, and worth at least 3d per bushel less than the sample shewn. The present claim was for loss sustained by the non-delivery of 200 bushels of wheat, at the rate of fid per bushel. His storeman would not have been justified in taking delivery of the oats in the damp condition they were in. The defendant had subsequently sold his grain to another merchant. Mr Evans, the storeman, was called, and mainly corroborated the evidence of the last witness. He stated that a load of oats which the defendant brought to the store were so discoloured that he refused to take them. The defendant then said that he had sold the wheat and oats together, and he would not deliver the one without the other. Witness asked him to see Mr Hutchinson, and perhaps he would make an arrangement with him. The oats were purchased at Is 9d, and the wheat at 4s 2d per bushel. Defendant said that Mr Dixon would make an arrangement with Mr Hutchinson. The defendant said he had sold from 400 to 600 bushels of grain to Messrs Hutchinson and Co., at certain prices. He brought down a load of oats, and the storeman refused to take them because, he said, they were not according to sample. Ho (defendant) then said, “ If you don’t take the oats, I will not deliver the wheat; as I sold them both together." By Plaintiff : To the best of my knowledge, the oats that I delivered at your store were dry. My stacks were not thatched, but you bought the grain as it was. The sample which I produce was taken from the bulk of the gram, I was offered a higher price for the grain after your storeman refused to take the oats, and I sold both wheat and oats to another merchant. This concluded the evidence, and his worship said the defendant had set up no defence that would hold good in law. He (defendant) had stated that he got a higher price for the grain, but he had no right to sell it to another person after having agreed to deliver it to the plaintiffs at a certain price. If he sold oats of good quality and afterwards delivered a worse sample, the person to whom he sold the grain had a perfect right to refuse it; and if he sold his grain to the plaintiff at a fixed price and afterwards sold it to another person, the first purchaser had a perfect right to sue him for any loss which he might sustain by such breach of contract. It had been clearly shown by the evidence that the contract entered into by the plaintiff and defendant had been broken by the latter, and judgment would be entered for full amount claimed, with costs.