LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVIII, Issue 6098, 3 June 1881, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

■» RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.— Thursday. [Before R. C. Barstow, Esq., R.M.] The ordinary weekly sitting of the Court was held this morning, and the following business disposed of : — Undefended Cases (Judgment for Plaintiffs). —Alexander Saunders v. James Finlay, £21; F. Ledger v. Wm. B. Wanuop, £7 10s 6d; James Close v. J. G. Berry, £5* ISs Id; Edward Waters v. Owen Murphy, £S 15s; Clement Witherford v. H. AV. Brewer, £1 os; Bright Smile Company v. Robert McKay, £20 ; T. B. Hannaford v. Richard Nolan, £3 16s 9d ; John Carey v. John Greenleaf, £25 ; Fisher and Co. v. Edward Shepherd, £S 15s lid; Joseph Thompson v. William Bell, £23 4s ; Bright Smile Gold-mining Company v. Francis Dalton, £20.

Judgment Summons.—H. L. Posseniskie v. Edward Shepherd, £7 4s ; ordered to pay 30s a month, or 14 days' imprisonment. James S. Jones v. John Mullally, £14; ordered to pay £6 by 17th of June, and the balance by the 12tli o£ July, or six weeks imprisonment. W. V. Bindou v. William Cook, £5 2s ; ordered to pay 20s a month, or in default, six weeks' imprisonment. James Finlay v. Daniel Munro, 10s a month or 14 days.

Adjourned. —William Kelly v. James Dihvorth, Telegraph Newspaper Company v. Lottie Wilmot, Edward Roberts v. Timothy Hays, Somerfield and Leek v. John Keir, the same v. George May, T. B. Hannaford v. Eades.

Winter v. Braddick, claim £6 10s. — Mr. Samuel Hesketh for the plaintiff. Mr. Theophilus Cooper for the defendant. This was an action to recover the value of a hogshead of ale shipped on board the ship Oxford, of which the defendant is master. From the statement of the plaintiff's counsel, it appeared that the hogshead was shipped in London "full of ale," and delivered to the plaintiff in Auckland "empty." The contents had disappeared. The present action was brought to recover the value of the beer lost, it was alleged. Demand for payment was made to Captain Braddick, but as lie got a "clean bill" from his surveyor, he declined to entertain the application. It next appeared from examination, that the cask had been improperly stowed. Captain H. F. Anderson said he had examined the cask. From the appearance of it he thought it had been stowed " bung down." The rule in stowing such goods was " bung up " and "bilge free." The cask bore marks of being chafed by bilge near the bung - hole; the sediment inside was collected round the bung-hole. Witness observed that one of the hoops had been spliced in a position that was not usual. In stowing ships in the dark in London it was probable that the stevedore, who was guided by the splicing of the hoops, took this for an ordinary splice, and stowed the cask "bung down" instead of "bung up." Mr. T. Bell (Ryan and Bell) gave similar evidence. Both witnesses said that stowing a full cask of beer bung down would be likely to cause the cask to burst. In this case the head was knocked out of the hogshead. The plaintiff said that he was a merchant and importer, residing in Auckland. He gave similar evidence as to the cause of the damage. Captain Braddick, when spoken to on the snbject, said the matter might be referred to arbitration. He said he could not pay because his surveyor had given him a free certificate. It was agreed to go to arbitration, but some misunderstanding took place. The damage in this c:;se was the result of mis-stowage. The cause of damage was fermentation, which made the cask give way at the weakest point. [Some amusement was caused by the vigorous efforts made by the learned counsel and witnesses rolling the cask up two flights of stairs from outside the building. Tho empty hogshead was the object of a good deal of forensic such as " It's a capital ! witness, though it says nothing; there's I nothing in it: it tells ' a tale of a tub," &c]

i Messrs. Leinpriere and Stewart, brewers, were examined, and gave evidence similar to that of the previous; witnesses, but they had not been brought up as brewers. They said if there was no vent for the fermentation the cask would burst at the weakest point—that is at the long stave. Mr. Theophilus Cooper contended that the loss was caused by the bursting of the cask. By the bill of lading the ship was not liable for "leakage," or damage, unless caused by improper stowage. He applied for a nonsuit. His Worship thought there was evidence of bad stowage. Mr. Cooper said that Mr. Whitson, a practical brewer, would say that " second fermentation " had been set up, and that the appearances were perfectly consistent with the cask being stowed "bung up." Captain Philip Jones deposed that he saw the cask before it was touched. Found one cask with a stave burst out in the head. It was bung up and bilge free; all of the casks were so, and were well stowed. Crossexamined by Mr. Hesketh : On turning the cask over did not notice any sediment. It was, as far as he could see, full of '' emptiness, " and was in the same condition as now produced in Court. Examined cask in the presence of head stevedore. Informed Mr. Winter, and asked him if he wished a survey upon it. By the Bench : The stave (produced) is of very dry wood, and is not thoroughly sound, it was broken off short. The Bench : Th« evidence of a cooper would have shown in five minutes how this affair occurred, and the Court lias been two hours engaged in its investigation. The stave is rotten, and such as no man would properly use in making a cask head. [Here Mr. Barstow took the stave up, anil crumpled portions of it between his fingers like touchwood.] There seemed little use iu going on with the case. Mr. Cooper thought it might make assurance doubly sure to call Mr. Whitson, brewer, as expert. Robert Whitson deposed that he was a brewer, and had 5S years' experience in trade. Second fermentation had commenced in the cask, and the faulty stave being the weakest spot, the cask burst there. The cask had been bung up,, as the hops were at the top. The fault in the cask was the cooper's, not the brewer's. By the Bench: No person aware of the faulty stave would ship beer in a cask like that. Mr. Cooper said he would not trouble the Court with any further evidence. Counsel having addressed the Court, his Worship gave judgment for defendant. Costs, £4 17b.

S. Ra.mus v. John* Joses.—A Commission Case.—Jlaiin, £12. Mr. Tyler for plaintiff, and Mr. Alexander for defendant. This was a claim for commission as having been instrumental in procuring the sale of a house belonging to defendant. Samuel Ramus deposed that he was a commission agent. Becoming aware, from conversation with. Mr. Gallagher, that he wanted to purchase a house, he saw Jones about the 12th March, and asked him if he wished to sell the house he had built in Symonds-streot. Jones said yes, and after some bargaining, agreed to give plaintiff 2A per cent, commission if he got £500 for it. Plaintiff took Mr. Gallagher to the house, and he saw it outside only, as Jones having a good tenant did not wish him to know he was contemplating sale of house. Gallagher was satisfied with appearances, and said if it, was as well inside as out it would do. Plaintiff went and saw Jones, and made an ap-' pointment for the parties to meet at 1 o'clock at the Thistle Hotel. Defendant did not keep it. Heard, some days afterwards, property sold to Gallagher for £4SO. Asked Jones for his commission. He replied that he had already paid the commission to R. C. Greenwood, estate agent, and could not pay twice over; but considered that if he (Ramus) had been fooled, he should be paid by somebody. He (Ramus) knew nothing of the other parties, but wanted his own commission. Saw Gallagher and appealed to him if he was not entitled to his claim, and Gallagher admitted he was so entitled. Cross-examined by Mr. Alexander : He was a commission agent, but had no office at present. Did anything he could get in the way of business. Was a betting and sporting man. Michael Gallagher deposed that he knew both the plaintiff and defendant. He bought the house from defendant for £4SO. On one occasion when Ramus was in his (witness's) house he asked him if he heard or knew of a suitable house, to let him know. Ramus informed him of Jones's house, in Symonds-street, and he went to see it with, him and was satisfied with it so far as the outside was concerned, but did not see the inside, as he understood Jones did not wish tlio tenant to be disturbed. On the 19th March, witness met with Greenwood, whom he had asked some time before to look out for a house for him. Told Greenwood that Ramus had acquainted him of Jones's house in Symonds-street being for sale. Greenwood replied, "Why, I have that place for sale." Went with Greenwood and Jones to see through the house, and after some negotiation purchased it for £-iSO. Would not have known of the house but for Ramus, but purchased through Greenwood. Witness never stated that plaintiff was entitled to a commission, on his appealing to him. He had no opinion on the matter, but left the parties to settle their own business between themselves. He had never made any appointment to go up with Jones and Ramus to see the place. John Jones deposed that he was defendant, aud knew the plaintiff— Ramus. He had a conversation with the plaintiff about the 12th March concerning the selling of his house in Symonds-street, and agreed to give him 2A per cent, if he sold it for £500. Some"time afterwards Ramus told witness he had got a purchaser, but would not give the price. Asked witness to go and see Gallagher. He did not do so: Heard no more about the matter, and thought it had dropped. Greenwood saw witness, and said ho had got a customer, and asked him to meet him. He did not know until on the. road, and Greenwood told him that it was Gallagher. He, Greenwood, and Gallagher went to the house, and the bargain was completed at £4SO. It was entirely through Greenwood that the property was sold. Certainly did say if Ramus had been made a fool of by somebody he ought to be compensated. He had paid one commission, which was quite enough. He never offered £2 as compensation. R. C. Greenwood deposed that he was a commission agent, and knew defendant, Jones. Gallagher had asked him to look out for a house for him, and ho had advertised for one for a month. Heard of Jones's house, and asked him if he would sell. He wanted £500. Took Jones and Gallagher up in a cab on the 10th of March to the house, in Symonds-street, and Gallagher ultimately purchased it for £4SO. Jones did not know they were going to Gallagher's till witness told him. Jones stated that Ramus had been bothering him about the house. Gallagher said that as lie (witness) had had all the trouble, he was entitled to the commission. Counsel having addressed the Bench on behalf of their respective clients, His . Worship, in giving judgment, said that it was clear from the evidence that Jones would never have heard of Gallagher as a customer, or Gallagher of Jones as a person having a - house for sale, but for the action taken by plaintiff. If a man made a loose undefined arrangement, by which his property was in the hands of two commission agents, lie must put up with the consequences. The proper coxirse was to have withdrawn authority from one agent before having any dealings with the other. There were a number of cases in the books, in which agents had received commissions under similar circumstances. Judgment must go for plaintiff, for full amount—£l2, and costs £2 15s. ,