Resident Magistrate's Court.

Marlborough Express, Volume III, Issue 119, 30 May 1868, Page 5

Resident Magistrate's Court.

BLENHEIM— Tuesday, Mat 26, 1868. [Before S. L. Muller, Esq., R.M.] BOARD OF EDUCATION V. JOSEPH FABIAN. This was an action for the recovery of the household rate. Judgment for plaintiif, £l, with £l 14s. costs. SAME V. JOHN HONEi’WELL.~«-<^ , ' , *"* J This was a similar case, and judgment was given for plaintiff —£ I—with 16s costs. HAMOND HYDE V. ANDREW HENDERSON. Plaintilf sought to recover £1 10s, upon an 1.0.TJ. - Plaintilf deposed ho saw defendant sign the 1.0. U. It was for refreshments he had during the space of 12 months. Judgment for plaintiff, with 13s. costs. J, DEMPSEY V. G. F. LOVEGROVE. Mr. Turton appeared for defendant. This was an action to recover £l for goods supplied.' Joseph Dempsey deposed that Mr. Lovegrove’s servants came for the goods supplied. It was mostly jobbing. They said they were sent by Mr. Lovegrove. There were three bits, and each time a different party came. The* charges were the usual ones. He had asked for the account, and Mr. Lovegrove said he knew nothing at all about it. By Mr. Turton : The stirrup leathers were ordered by Jamie, they call him, who has been on Lovegrove’s station for years. He was a servant. He gave him a.verbal order, telling him Mr. Lovegrove sent him down. The second item, the harness, was brought to be repaired by his servant— Edward Hickson. He was sure he was oh the station. The repairing the harness was on behalf of Mr. Lovegrove. The third item—new. girth and straps to saddlebags—was got by Harry McArtney, who was servant there at the’limel He"(plaintiff) saw Mr. Lovegrove, who said he knew nothing about the things. Me had supplied to the extent of twenty pounds’ worth before this, and he had never to his knowledge had a written order for anything, Previous accounts had been duly paid by him. He could not say whether these parties'ever asked for goods before. Mr. Turton argued that plaintiff of his own knowledge, could not say the parties were servants of Mr. Lovegrove,; and hj? Was empowered, by Mr. Lovegrove to say that he denied any knowledge of the things, such agents as these could not bind a-prin-cipal, as they were not acting within the scope of their employment. If such claims were allowed; servants might come down and run up a long bill against a rnnliolder, or his manager. Mr. Dempsey interposed, and said ho could prove that the goods supplied were used oh the station. ■ - :

By the Bench; He had not .brought witnesses about such a paltry amount, and. he' Wally had hot time, as he did .not know the case was to be heard then. r l The Bench could not conceive that the . defendant; -after duly .paying previous• accounts without demurer, would object to ' these . things if they were got for bis service,; and The defendant had not prodlicld/wit-. i r ‘€ViV i'

nesses to establish Mr. Lovegrove’s liability. He would be either obliged to give a nonsuit, or adjourn the case till the Bth of June. Plaintiff ashed for an adjournment for the production of his witnesses. Case adjourned ; plaintiff having to pay £1 Is. costs, for legal attendance.