RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XIII, Issue 4482, 25 March 1876, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

; ■ Friday. j [Before B. C. Barstow, Esq., B.H.J The ordinary weekly sitting of the Court! was held this morning, and the following; business disDOsed of :— Judgments for Plaintifjts (Undefended). : —John Sr. Maclrchlan v. J. Robey Carter (goods), £4 2s lOd ; James Scott v. William; Higginson (interest), £6'lss; G. Holdship and Co. v. A.R.Ross (goods), £24 12s; James Wiseman v. John Williamson, £1 13s;' Hewin Brothers v. Charles Fiucham, £4-4s 3d (pay at £1 per month); Stephenson and Co. v. Tibbutt, £5 6s Gd (to pay in a mouth, or a month's imprisonment in default); , Henry "William Simes v. Joseph Worms, £2 6s 6d; John F. Churton v. Robert Evans, £*3 4s (rent); the same v. Abel Fletcher, £1 4s 6d (rent); Edward Rogers v. John Calvert, £1; James Byrnes v. Richard SandrJl, £4 14s Sd; Thomas Thompson v. Samuel Davies, £1 8s lid. Adjourned.—Lupton v. Boucher ; Harvey v. Gledhill; Thomas v. Farey. The following defended cases were heard:— John Hanna v. Archibald Waiude.— Claim, £1 10s 9d. Mr. Laishley appeared for the plaintiff, who is a storekeeper; aud the claim was for goods supplied. The defonce was that only 17s IOJd was due. The bill commenced with the 9fcli of Jauuary, and included particulars of goods supplied up to the middle of March. The plaintiff .deposed to the correctness of the account. He also said that the defendant admitted the correctness of the account, and promised to pay it; that an admission to the like effect was made last Wednesday by the defendant. The defendant denied the whole of this evidence in the most positive manner. . He said he paid the plaintiff 10s, in reduction of his account, up to the 9th of January, and that settlement left a balance against the defendant of 17s 10\d, which he still admitted'to be due. - He (defendant) next put his wife in the box, and she swore that she never had any goods from the plaintiff after the settlement referred to, except such as she sent the money for. She sent her niece with the money to pay for it whenever she wanted anything from the plaintiffs shop. The plaintiff, in reply, said that his own wife served some of the goods, and booked them, which she would not have done had the money been sent by the defendant's wife. The conflict of evidence was so great, that His Worship resolved to adjourn the hearing to the next Court-day, directing the plaintiff to have in attendance bia wife, who entered the goods in the book of account, and the defendant that he should' have in attendance his niece, who, as it was sworn by his wife, brought the money with her to pay for the goods. Adjourned accordingly. Trustees of Stephenson v. Burton - .— Claim, £4 10s. Mr. Thorne for plaintiff, Mr. Lusk for defendant. This was an action to recover the price of a chest of tea alleged to be delivered to the defendant, a baker and confectioner, Parnell, under the following circumstances. The evidence disclosed a mistake on either side. A witness named Robert Hogg proved that at either the beginning or the end of May—he could not say the date—he delivered a half-chest of tea to Mr. Burton. James Home, commercial traveller to Stephenson and Co., Wyndhamstreet, proved that on the 2nd of June he entered in the order-book an order for a halfchest of tea, which he had received from Mr. Burton. He entered the ordor.tlie same day half-chest of tea, initialed Hy Mr. Burton's" * son. as having received the' goods. The explanation of this was that Mr. Burton's family being " out of tea," they had to send for it before the order of the 2nd of June could be supplied. The evidence of the receipt of the half-chest of tea by the defendant's son was identical on each side. The defendant was examined, and said he received no other tea on the 2nd or 3rd of June, or about those dates from Messrs. Stephenson and Co. He did not receive a half-chest of tea from the witness Hogg about those dates. Whenever he reseived tea from Hogg he received the counterpart of the delivery-sheet taken from Hogg's book, and produced the two counterparts on account of the delivery of previous halfchests of tea. It also appeared that no counterpart could be found to correspond with the alleged delivery of the half-chest of tea on the 2nd of June. Mr. Lusk said the evidence was very clear and straightforward on both sides. It was, no doubt, the duty of the assignees of a bankrupt estate to get in the book debts, and they could not help bringing the action. But it was evident that Mr. Burton could not want half-chests of tea upon two consecutive days. He thought there was sufficient to shew that Hogg was mistaken in the date of the delivery of the half-chest, which he alleged to have been made about the end of Slay. Mr. Thorne addressed the Court, to shew that the witness could not have been mistaken so widely as was contended by the other side. His Worship thought there was a mistake, and the mistake was on the side of the plaintiff. Judgment for the defendant. Taylor v. Melton.—Claim, £3 16s. This claim was brought to'recover the price of a Volunteer Cadet's uniform. The defence was not indebted, as an agreement was made with plaintiff to pay certain sums, the balance of the cost of uniform to come out of capitation allowanca. Mr. Joy appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. Kissling and Mr. Dufaur for the defendant. This case involved some questions of public importance. The plaintiff was captain of the Sir George Grey Cadet Company of "Volunteers, known previously as the Blue School Cadets. AVhen the Company was disbanded, it appeared that the corps had incurred certain liabilities for uniforms, &c., &c., and the present plaintiff, as captain, was sued, and a judgment given against him for £26, the price of the uniforms supplied. A judicial opinion was at the same time pronounced to the effect that Mr. Taylor, then defendant at the suit of Mr. Saunders, tailor, who made the uniforms, could recover the price of them severally from the parents of the boys to whom they were supplied as cadets of the Company under his command. The present case was brought, and is calculated to test some questions of liability arising out of the relation of Volunteers to their officers and to the Government. The plaintiff deposed to the order and supply of the uniforms, for which the Cadets were to contribute a certain proportion of the cost, the rest to come out of the capitation money. The view of the case put by the plaintiff was, that whatever the capitation money fell short, the boys , would pay the balance. Part of the defence was, that the capitation money was to pay the balance. In cross-examination it was elicited that the company took two trips to the Kawau, which cost a considerable sum; that a bazaar was got up in aid of the funds of the corps, which realised between £20 and £30, and a theatrical entertainment, which realised a few shillings ; that when the corps made the first trips to the Kawau they were £20 in debt, and it was also suggested that sundry charges were incurred which could not have been brought as liabilities against the Cadets, and the funds of the corps were appropriated to these charges, but the plaintiff said, whatever charges were" incurred was upon the resolution and vote of the Cadets. Before the hearing of the plaintiff's case, Mr. Kissling applied for a non-suit, upon the ground that the father was not liable unless he either gave his son authority to incur the debt, or contracted to pay it. He cited a case where this was held to be law, even when a boy was supplied with clothes at school, which clothes he brought home with him, and afterwards took back to school with ln that case the father was Held .to be not liable. His Worship declined to. grant a non-suit.

In the present case, the boy resided under his .father's roof. .Ernest.. Melton,. son of_feho i plaintiff, was examined" for the defence, i deposed that in IS7I, he was a pupil at the | Rev. Mr. Mason's school. He becamo-a j: member of the Blue School Cadets, which ii was under the commaud of Mr;" Taylor. Tho y conditions of joining the corps was a pay- - ,xnent of 5s : he was to atteud a number of 5 parades, and the uniform was to come out of the capitation money. But as witness was late in joining, and as the order had been • given for the uniforms before ho joined, Mr. . Taylor told him he must pay £1. "Witness j gave him £1 the same evening. The second year, witness paid 10s for the new uniform, .j the conditions beiug 10s paid down, to attend r ) seven - months' parade out of the twelve months, upon which the uniform was to become the. property of each Cadet. Each Cadet was to pay 5s towards the "shako," i and a further sum of 2s Gd for certain alteraI' tions. The remainder of the cost of the uniform was to come out of capitation allow- < 'ance. A witness named George Campbell gave a precisely similar account ox the arrangement between the boys and the plaintiff. This witness also deposed that ho was asked to audit the accounts, but ho saw certain charges for "sundries," and ho declined to sign them. Henry Leon, also a member of the corps, gave similar evidence. The agreement upon which the joining of tho corps was alleged to have taken place, was stated to be iu writing, and au adjournment was granted to enable its production at the next sitting of the Court. Mr. Dufaur said there was another case. Major Gordon was in attendance to prove the payment of the capitation money year by year. He would be able to show that if Mr. Ta3 r lor had not been prodigal with the money, there would be no claim like this against any of the boys. If the funds had been carefully managed, there would have been sufficient to pay all the liabilities of the corps. Major Gordon was examined, upon application being made to tho Court. He said these Volunteer Cadets were not iu all respects the same as adult volunteers. Cadets were not sworn in, and would not be liable to be called out for. active service. Capitation money was paid into the general fund of each corps ; no officer or inau had any separate control over it. It could only be affected by the vote of the Company. Tho officers had nothing to say in the management except as members, but in the case of youths "who formed a Cadet Corps he thought the officers might hare a good deal to say in the disbursement of its' funds. In the case of Melton tho Government had paid capitation allowance at full rate, (£l,) for the year 1873 and 1574. for Campbell it paid full rates for 1573, 1874, .1575, and for 1872 at half rate. The following sums were.. paid as capitation money to the corps 1572, £38 103 ; 1573, £46; 1574, £45 10s; 1875, £29 10s. He had heard that the reason the corps was disbanded, was that they had given a good deal of trouble to the Captain by not attending regularly at parade, &c., &c. * The further hearing was adjourned to next Court-day, the costs to abide the result.