LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9219, 23 November 1888, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

R.M. COURT.—Thursday. [Before Dr. Giles, R.M.]

undefended vases. —in tne following undefended cases judgment was given for the plaintiffs by default—Webb and Son v. Robert Farrell, £16 7s 7d, costs £2 2s; Emily Holmes v. John Pearson, £1 7s 6d, costs 6s. Henry F. Pearson v. William Hateley. —The claim in this case was for £5. The plaintiff, a jockey, claimed £6 for two winning mounts in races, iees £1 paid on account. After bearing the evidence, judgment was given for plaintiff for £3, and costs 9s. 1). H. McKenzie v. Galbkaith and Johnson.This was a claim to recover £17 l'2s 6d. Mr. S. Hesketh appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Stone for tii defendant. The olaim was in respect or lightering timber and freight. The whole question was whether there was a contract between the plaintiff and defendants, the defence being that the contract was with Malcolm Niccol. and that all claims had been satisfied. The claim was originally £62 odd, but payments had been paid on account. The plain till deposed that the contract for lightering timber to the brijjantine Peerless was made between Captain Hooper, of the barge Waipu, and Mr. Niccol. In respect to the second item, lightering to the Stanley, and the third item, sending a vessel (Ruakaka) to Tairua, he could not speak personally, but he sent the vessel to Tairua. When he spoke to Mr. Galbraith the latter said that he could not recognise any person but Mr. Niccol; but subsequently there was an agreement between them as to the rates and charges, and Mr. Galbraith then gave him an order for £23 8s 4d on Mr. J agger, the amount arranged between them, and it was paid ; and a second order was also paid, but Galbraith said at the time that he had paid certain monies to Mr. Niccol, and would not pay them again, and he gave the older for what he considered the balance, but witness claimed the whole. In cross-examination witness said that he was not sure that there were two orders. The one produced, for £43 8s 6d. may have been the only order he received, but it was paid in two sums of £20 and £23 8s 4d, and the receipt produced for the latter amount was signed by his son, R.H. McKenzie. He never personally made a contract with Johnson and Galbraith, or either of them, either before the work was performed or afterwards. Mr. M. Niccol and a number of other witnesses were examined. Mr. Stone submitted that the plaintiff's case had not been made out, and His Worship agreed with this view. Judgment was given for the defendants, with costs, £3 6s. S. Cochrane and Son v. J. H. Scott. —Claim, £3 9s. Mr. J. M. Alexander oppeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Clendon for the defendant. This was an action brought under the following circumstances : —On the Pith of August the plaintiffs, who are auctioneers, held a sale of furniture, and at that sale the defendant bought a Brussels carpet, an Austrian chair, and a Duchess suite. On examination of the articles, defendant was dissatisfied, and declined to complete the sale by paying for the goods. The plaintiff, after giving notice, resold the articles, and this second sale caused a deficiency of £3 9s, the amount now sued for. James Dacre, a member of the firm of Cochrane and Son, deposed to the sale being held, and defendant's bid being accepted for the goods. Witness did not warrant them in any way. The defendant, when spoken toon the subject, said that the suite was not sound. Other suites brought £10; this one only fetched £6. Cross-examined : Defendant offered to pay for the carpet and chair, but not for the other. This offer witness refused. Mr. Clendon moved for a nonsuit on the ground that the four conditions named in the 17th section of the Statute of Frauds had not been complied with. This objection was overruled by His Worship, as there were separate contracts for the three articles. John H. Scott, the defendant, deposed that he could not get near the suite to examine it at the time of the sale, and when he saw it afterwards he found that it was broken. His Worship said the case must be decided according to the conditions of sale, which stipulated that any objection must be rendered in writing at the time of the sale ; and he therefore gave judgment for the plaintiff, with costs £1 7s. A. Totman v. Mrs. Wright.—Claim for goods supplied and delivered by the plaintiff, who is a storekeeper in Grafton Road. Mr. Bcale appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Madden for the defendant. The evidence of the plaintiff having been heard, Mr. Madden moved for a nonsuit, which was granted, on the ground that the husband was the party liable. S. A. Loftos v. J. Sheriff.—Claim, £3 Gs 7d. The plaintiff is a butcher carrying on business at Northcote, and the action was brought to recover the cost of goods sold and delivered to the defendant, together with the killing fee in respect of an animal slaughtered by Loftus. Mr. Brassey appeared for the plaintiff. His Worship gave judgment for £2 13s 4d, with coats £1 7s. S. Morrison v. Mrs. West.— £5 7s. Mr. Burton appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Mahony tor the defendant. The plaintiff is a blacksmith, carrying on business at Papatoetoe ; and the defendant (a chairmaker). In May last defendant ordered some horseshoeing, and repairing of a cart, to be done. Since that date West became bankrupt, and plaintiff proved upon the estate, when it was found that the horses and carts were the property of Mrs. West. Plaintiff rendered an account to the latter, but she took no notice of it. In crossexamination Morrison admitted that he had in June sent in a claim to Mrs. West, and subsequently in August claimed upon her husband. For the defence it was contended that, as the plaintiff had proved against West's estate, he could not now proceed against Mrs. West. His Worship reserved judgment. POLICE COURT.— I Thursday. [Before Messrs. J. P. King anil W. Crowtlier, J.P.'s.] Drunkenness. —Three persons were punished for this offence. —William Moran was charged with the larceny of a silver watch and chain value £2 10s, the property of Richard King. The case was remanded until Friday. Breaking and Entering.—John Dinan was charged with breaking and entering into the house of Ole Olsen at Paremoremo, and stealing 9cwt. of kauri gum. The prisoner asked that the case be remanded in order to allow him to prepare his evidence. He requested that he might see the depositions taken in the case against another prisoner who had been committed for trial on this charge. After some argument the case was remanded until Friday. PORT ALBERT R.M. COURT. Friday, November 16. [Before J. S. Clendon, R.M., J. Shepherd, and J. G. Dudding, J.P.'s.] Eulder Perkins v. F. Worker.—This case was called up for judgment, having been heard last court day. It was a matter of trespass, defendant having cut tracks and hauled timber through plaintiffs land at Tauhoa, contrary to the injunction from the Supreme Court. Judgment for plaintiff, £30; court fees, £8 ; witnesses' expenses, £4 4s; solicitors' fees, £3 3s; total costs, £15 17s. Robert Aldwortii v. E. Perkins.— Plaintiff summoned defendant for wages, £5 ss. Judgment for plaintiff for £4 13s, the latter to pay costs, lis. F. C. Uttino, Rate Collector South Aliiertland Road Board v. Thomas Hunter. — Summons for rates, £1 15s 9d. Judgment for amount claimed and costs, £1 3s. Port Albert Co-operative Co. v. Geo. King (a native). —Claim for goods supplied, amounting to £3 15s. Judgment for plaintiffs, £2 17s lid, and costs, 16s. Charles Lynds v. Wm. H. Bradley.— Claim for board, £3 14s. This case was adjourned from last court day to enable defendant to bring cross summons. This showed a claim for wages and freight of £10 17s 6d. .Judgment was for the plaintiff Lynds for full amount and costs, 17s. The cross summons of Bradley v. Lynds was a nonsuit, plaintiff to pay costs, £2 10s. —[Own Correspondent.] WARKWORTH R.M. COURT. Thursday, November 15. [Before J. Clendon, Esq., R.M.] Several summonses for rates due to the County Council and Road Boards had been settled out of court. John Dkrecourt v. Beverly Pearson. —In the absence of defendant, and service of summons not being proved, the case was adjourned until next court day.[Own .Correspondent;.]

Undefended Cases. In the following undefended cases judgment was given for the plaintiffs by default—Webb and Son v. Robert Farrell, £16 7s 7d, costs £2 2s; Emily Holmes v. John Pearson, £1 7s 6d, cost? 6s. Henry F. Pearson v. William Hateley. —The claim in this case was for £5. The plaintiff, a jockey, claimed £6 for two winning mounts in races, less £1 paid on account. After bearing the evidence, judgment was given for plaintiff for £3, and costs 9s.