RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 826, 13 August 1864, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, 12th Atjgusi!. (Before A. C. Strode, E?q., R.M.'. . Dbuk^vrbs.—William M'Donald, Alexander " '31 "Donald, and William England, were each "lined 20s, or 48 houro' imprisoHment for being •xlrunk. CIVIL OASES. John McCartney v. J. Reid Mackenzie.— of LI. The plaintiff .did not appear, and "was accordingly aoii-suite-l. Ho*? and B.utton v John Horrocfcs.—Claim -' r ofLslis4d. Plaintiffs did not appear, and was '-•non-Suited, t' ,J..Keenan v. Chanfpnrss. of the firm of Polman and Chnnipne.es.— Claim'of L2O, as balance of i =an amount for sundry ease of whisky and firkins •of butter supplied. The plaintiff's case was that •the defendant was in partnership with his father-in-law, Mr Polman. and was with him when re . -ordered these goods from the plaintifij in order tr> open a store at Hindon. defendant had paid •■two instalments, one cf L 7 and another of L2O. on account'cf this same transaction. The defendant drmedthat he had been ia partnership ■^ith Mr Polman. Ho used to sell eoods on Mr Polman's account when they were smt ud to to him, but he never, parcipitntcd in onp farthing of profit on sccoimt of them. He did pay the plaintiff one sum of L2O on account of his father sn-law; but he .told the plaintiff at the time -that he paid this because he knew it was a just debt, an<l not because he was liable. All the invoices oftha goods had bren mada out by the plaintiff only in the name of Mr Polmnn, and no mention was made of the defendant :jii any of' ihe accounts, nor had any claim been made against him until Polmaa went ' away to ' Melbourne. Mr Harris, -who was in partnership at Hindon with ' -the "defendant, distinctly sworetthatt t Mr Polman '•'had no connection, with the firm in an'-way. ' The Magistrate thought there was quito sufficient ■to show that the defendant, hart represented himself as a partner, and that he lwd participated in the profits. ■ Judgment for the plaintiff with '■costs. Corkin v. A. Cairns and Co.—Claim of 1.20 for a quantity of piles detained by plaintiff on ■defendant account at the Rsttray street Jetty. 'The plaintiff said 'he delivered a certain quantity of piles at. the Jetty, which were delivered at the defendant's risk." The defendant's rase waa that a large qnantity of the piles were refused by him on delivery as "being bad, and he stated to the plaintiff at the time of delivery that he could them m the ~ Jetty, .and if the Inspector passed them he would psy, but tot unless. The piles had been refused, and were stilllvinaon •the Jetty at the plaintiff's risk. The Government Inspector of the Sattray street Jetty works was called as a witness, and said he knew the « timber id qu'stion. More than one half of it was '.quite unfit for the-purpose to which it, was to he • ■-applied. Fe" would rfject one-b.ilf of it. This limber, to his knowledge, > was supplied by the plaintiff, A witness was present when the tim : T>er was unloaded from the cart, and heard the •defendant at the time tell plaiutin" that the timber was bad and unfit for u?e, and be -would not accept it. The piles were still lying on the •Jetty, and some of tbem were so rotten that witness could push his" arm right up through the 'lieart of" them.' Judgment for the plaintiff, L 3 15s, and costs. W. Bi«set v. Alexander Cairns and Co —Claim ■of LI3 15s. being balance of an account, for labor, in felling trees in the bush, and drawing them •out of the bush; and casting, them to town. The ■plaintiff stated that he aereedwith the defendant "to cut piles on Mr Burns' property, at the Taieri. =and bring them to town, but there was no special agreement as to the price. It was left to him "to make his own charge. He brought, to town -fi«ht forty-feet piles, and one t'drty-feet pile. 'The defendant paid into Court. 18 1?, atid pleaded not indebted as to the remainder. He made a snecial agreement with the plaintiff to cut and bring in the timber, at the rate of 2s-per foot, -and lay it down on the .wharf. This was for 'forty-feet piles, and Is 6d per foot for thirty-feet piles. The plaintiff only brought to town six -forty-feet piles and three thirty feet piles. One • -of the forty-feet piles was unfit for use, and one had to be converted into a thirty-feet pile, as part •of it was rotten. Two piles were lying on the -Jetty, waiting on the plaintiff to take them away, •bs they had been condemned by the Government Inspector. The plaintiff wns re-called, and said It never was intimated to him by Mr Cairns or any other person, that some of the piles tvere bad, or ths4 the defendant was doubtful that 1 hey -would not pass the Inspector. The Magistrate -jfchougHt'it was incumbent on the defendant to "have intimated to the plaintiff within a reasonable time, that the timber was not sound, and that he would not take delivery of it. Judgment -for the plaintiff in the sum of Ll2 159, and costs, : t)eing a deduction of LI, for a part of a pile which *was broken off in un'oading at the Jetty. Gird wood v. Peter Paterson.—This case was -adjourned for one week, on the application of the plaintiff ' J. ChrHie v. J. Stevenson-Claim of JLS for cash lent at different times, since the 12r.h of December, and L 2 15s for board and lodging, and •refreshments. The plaintiff's account was marie np in such an inexplicable way that, on the -recommendation of the Magistrate, he accepted a non-suit, in order to amend his particulars. Wilson v. Davies—Claim of Lll 6s, being balance of a bill of exchange. The defendant in this case is in gaol, but he had admitted the debt ;and paid a portion of the amount due. Judgment for the plaintiff with costs, Currie and Hegan v. Lawlor—This was a claim Jfor wages. The defendant could not appear, as >he was engaged with the Superintendent about the contract on which this claim was made. The <case was adjourned to Monday, the defendant to may the plain'iffs LI each as costs. ■ _ Hoooerand Robertsv. William Bowyer-Claim of L 6 193 for rent of cottage. Defendant admitted the debt, but pleaded inability to pay. Judgment by consent for the plaintiff, with costs. Judgments by default were given for the plaintiffs in the following cases:—Cuddetord and "Kellett v. George Rendall, L 18; Thomas Martin v. J. H. Jenkinson, L2O [a re-hearing of this case was afterwards eranted for Monday next] j Keith v. Blake, L 9; Samuel Webb and J. Uuncev. Peter Heean, L 2 7s 6d; T. Hawprth t. Hargin, LlO 2s 8d; Billey v. J. B. Blair, THE CLIPPER BBIG

J 3 10s • Morton and Robertson v- T. Forsaitb, 1.3 4s 6d ; W. Hislup v. Charles Milne, L 4 6s 6d. The following cases were dismissed inconsequence of the non-appearance of. the parties :— R Wilson and Co. v. Thomas Lnwson, Lll Us lid ; M. and H. Fink v. Captain Darby, LlO 10s; Jnmes Pierre v. Thomas Kibble, JLSl7s6d; Hay ward v. Williams, LMOs,- Weir v Davids, LI 19s; Palmer v. Anderson; J. Harris v. Rebecca Shavp,-L9; J. Cook v. K. Sharp, L 2133; J.. Christie v. William Murley, LI It's.