RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVIII, Issue 6212, 14 October 1881, Page 6

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thursday. (Before J. E. Macdooald, Esq.. R.M.] The weekly sitting of the Court to hear and determine small debt claims was held this morning, and the following business disposed of:— Undefended Cises.—John Lumbkin v. William Purdy, £24 13s 3d—costs, £2 ; Robert Moore v. Edward Friend, £5 ; Thos. Cotter v. Samuel Bright, £1 7s; Bridget Mooney v. James Coyle, 15s ; Thomas jdilditch v. F. Moss, £1 ss; Charles Keith v. E. Jones, £3. Adjocb>ed.—Richard Laishley v. James Dempsey, £13 2s; the same v. Angus Nicholson, £25 ; Thomas Faulderv. Bernard McDonald ; Somerfield and Leek v. Timothy Condon ; Samuel Coombes, v. Joshua Jones, £12 6s Td ; C. S. McDonald v. Robert Graham, £16 7s 3d ; Philip Jones v. Samuel Benner, £7 7s ; William Wear v. James W. Waller, £36; R. Laishley v. Thomas Henry Jukes, £29 12s Sd. Thomas Ingles v. J. P. Greevleaf.—The plaintiff is a ship-smith, and the defendant a master mariner. Mr. T. Cooper appeared for the plaintiff; the defendant appeared in person. The cHim was for mechanical appliances—l 2 half thimbles, 27 large shackles, and 14 ordinary shackles, supplied to the defendant for the purpose of raising the steamship Taupo, while under water near Tauranga. The defendant said that he had no dealings ■with the plaintiff. The defendant was the first and only witness in support of the plaintiff's case. He said that he was one of the three persons who bought the Taupo, and tried to raise her. The names of the other two owners were AlfrcdPorterandFrank Winter. Mr. Gouk had something to do with the operations undertaken to lift the vessel. Witness took Gouk down to Tauranga as his "mechanical adviser." Witness, however, supervised the operations, but he did not order the goods charged against him. He had ordered goods of several tradesmen, and he paid what he ordered himself. But in this case he had not ordered the things. He did not think it was fair that he should be called to pay all the expense. He had offered Mr. Inglis to pay each his just share, and he (witness) was ready to pay his share. He admitted—that is, he was not prepared to deny—that the goods were supplied, but he did not order them, and he considered that Mr. Gouk ought to pay for them. His Worship : You say Mr. Gouk was your mechanical adviser, that means, in effect, that he was in your employment. The goods were ordered, and shipped on board the Clara Hargreaves; they were used in the operation of lifting the Taupo, and you had the benefit of them, in such case you are liable. The witness handed in a letter, which he said would prove to the Court that Gouk was acting on his own responsibility. His Worship (reading the document) : According to this, Gouk actually takes a contract, but the date of the document is subsequent to these goods being supplied.—Mr. Cooper : I submit, your Worship, that the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment on the defendant's oirn statement that he employed Gouk; that Gouk was his agent, and that the goods were used for defendant's benefit. His Worship : If there was a partnership between these three persons named, and these goods were supplied for the purposes of the partnership, then the partnership would be liable. According to the defendant's account of the relation which Gouk had to the enterprise, he would be liable, but when the witness spoke of himself he evidently meant the partnership. The defendant: I have offered to pay my share. The plaintiff was examined, and said that some of the goods were ordered by the delendaut and Gouk, who came to witness's shop together. Others were ordered by Mr. Winter. They were ordered for the purposes of the "Taupo spec." Mr. Cooper : The defendant was sued upon his own statement of his relation to Gouk. The defendaut : I have offered the other owners to pay my share. They say to the plaintiff, "Go to Greenleaf. He has to pay you." It is rather hard that I should, after losing a lot of mouey and doing all the work, have to pay the whole of the expense. His Worship : As the matter stands now, I can not exclude from consideration the partnership between these parties. It is clear the liability is assuming a partnership upon the partnership, rather than upon a member of it. The plaintiff was nonsuited.