RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 2006, 4 June 1868, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wkdnkki>ay. June 3rd.

(Before A. R. C. Strode, Esq., IOL) BjKounKRLY. — Bridget Kane was charged with having been drunk and disorderly, and with being by habit a drunkard. The prisoner was an old offender, having frequently been convicted of larceny and disorderly conduct;. She was sentenced to three months' hard labor. Alexander Wilson, for having been drunk and disorderly, was fined'Kh.

Stkamno Mon.i;y.—Alexander M'Kay was charged with having, on March 3rd, stolen a letter containing (ivo Ll Bank notes, tho property of Richard (Jlovin. He was remanded to the Resident Magistrate's Court, Oamarn.

(IlVih CASKS,

C.Wai«on «. W. H. HasseU.— A. claim of Lyi 17s Id, for timber supplied, and work and labor done. Mr Wilson appeared for i'je pltvintifl* and Mr Barton for tho defendant. The plnintiff undertook to remove to iho street lino a house belonging iv> the defendant, in High street, and to raise .it several feet. The cl.iim was fin- wovk and material used in connection, with tho contract. The defence was that, the work had not been done ; and thoro w;u; a crops action for damage aU'.'j'cd to i o Rtistained by the ncjflig«nro of the plaint ill', in consexjtionce of winch tho Inoj!i« had falliii and been injured Tho Magistrate, in yi\rin^ his decision, c<»n!iidored that the price for which the work {should be done w.13 .in op'Mi rjneKtion ; the plaintiff was to do it a;s cb.eaply as ho could. But tho main question was whether tho wovk was totally inadequate for tiio purpose for which it was undertaken. ff it was no, the plnuitiff had no cage. It appeared to him, by Mr fl.molPs own admission, that be had interfered with tho duties of tho plaintiff; ho admitted that lie made Bntrcjcs'ions about enflicient props, and he told one of the woiknicn thai he could ukc a certain pieco of fimbyr. By thus inlrcrfcring with the contract, he bad put himaeh" out of Court. The pkintiu" and oi'.o of his v;itnosses Kv.-nre, that, in coiiaerpienco of the act of Mr ILissell, tho honr.o fell. Judgment f.>r tin: pl;aj)tiii" for tho amount claimed, less !.<; which had been paid to the plaintiff. The or.-(3s-acti'.n was for L 72. for damages siiKtaincd liy injuries to the biuMm-,', and fur (-xpenses incurrt-d in conip]etiu.^ tho work <.f fcinoviiiL' and raising it. Mr 11/'.ss, architect, and other witnesses, were called, and described tho preparations for removal as of a most iuefheieiiL character. Tlio coat of coiaplutin^ tho contract w.is also proved. The defence was tha*. the I>:aititiii"(Mr Jlasuull) had, }>y his act, contributed to tho fall of the house, and to tho c.mserjiient damage. The Mnf.'istr.itc took that view of it, and yavo judgment for tho defendant. Mr Havton s:iid it was worth while considering whether the inteifeience of a party with whom, a co!itract w;is made, by making sn^jjestions, exonerated a contractor from doinff his work in a woi-kur.in-li.ko way ; ami the pla'ntiff would like to havo His Worship'n jud'^ment on the enso. The Magistrate had no objections, and, on the preliminaries being complied with, would state a special c.iko.

Jn^iis and Burko v. Lothian ami others. — The plaintiffs. :irt> contractors ; the defendants represent the iload Board ii» llio I Igheliflo District. Tho plaintiffs claimed L 2!) IBs, as the amount of damage which they hnrt sustained I'y not being allowed to proceed with a contract which they had undertaken. They asserted Ih.it by Mr Wain, son., and by* letter from tho Clork to tho Board, they had been informed chat f heir tender had been accepted, but that the Board afterwards refused to recognise them as contractors. Fifty chains of road was tho amount, of work to he done. Mr Haggitt, fion., for tho defendants, applied for a nonsuit, on the grounds; that by the Turnpike Ordinance, any contract should lxs entered into by two members of tho I?oavd, and by resolution of tho Board. Mr Stewart submitted that nothing hud been shown why tho plaintiffs should not recover in the ordinary way. The Magistrate said f hat thoro was a ca.so to answer. TJio RocMon of the Ordinance referred to, h« conr,idored, was meroly permissive. In tlus defence it was proved that, in the minutes of the Board, it was recorded that, in Stnarfc and 111)1 inson's contract, there was no entry of tho plain tifiV tender being accepted, and tho Chairman of tho Board stated that no authority had boon given to any one to accept their tender. No fresh tender was called for, and Stuart and Robinson proceeded with their contract. Tho Magistrate said there was a point in the case which lie would liko to look into lxiforc ho gave his decision, and he would give hia decision on Monday next.

O'Brien v. C'orsan.—Tho plaintiff, a. jockey and trainer, claimed from the defendant, owner of the horses Virginia and Stormbird, a huiii of L)t<», being wages, at the rato of 25s por. week, sen per cent, on winning mounts, T>fs for losing mounts, and travelling expenses from and to Melbourne arid otherwiso. Mr Maoassry appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Wilson for the defendant. The" plaintiff stated that he had been engaged in Melbourne by Mr James M'Kenzio. On corning to Dnnedin, ho presented himself to- Me Corsuii, and, in reply to a question, stilted tho terms of his engagement, bu*- did not show him a copy of the agreement. Ho took charge of tho horses, and rode them at (Jlirisitchnrch, Dnnedin, and Tokonuiriro. There were two losing mounts at Christchtirch, awl three at Dumnlin. Among tho winnings thoro wan one at Tokoniairiro, the Farmers' Purse, upon which he claimed percent ago, according to tho agreement, although, ho ftid not rno-mt. Be product api ess copy of tho agreement), signed by himself ami Mr M'Kenjsie, urnl it was admitted as* evidence. Tho defendant's statement was, that ho had written to Mr M'KVnzio to engage a boy as jockey. Tho plaintiff came. On his arrival, he asked the plaintiff if he had «.uy agreement with him, but ho said ! he had not. The plaintiff/, however, fair! ! that his wages vero to bo 25a per week. ! He (tho defendant) did not disputes the ten per cent. o» winning mounts, except in tho case of tho "Farmers' Parse ai T^kotnairiro, for which tho plaintiff waft not qualified. Tho plaintiff never mentioned any agreement as to losing «nonr,ta, and it was not iiewd to pay losing iniivinfa, except wlicro tht.ro wjis a specit^ agrcoment, or wiiero ft jocltfty was pioked up on tho T&s^mvirm. : "Neither hft^ thojjliMn- ' tiff metitioii&l liia JMB^§-Qossf.'.fano.

I and to Melbourne. He (tho defendant; had never seen or known of the agreement until tho copy was produced in Court. Th^Uayistrato said that it appeared to him, tVim tile <wid«neo cf tho defendant hi\na^t that Mr Mackenzie was, to all intents^nd purposes, n.special agent Ire the.caacj.of » general agent, the principal was remniiHiblo at all h:»z:irds. With, regard tsjL v special ngev.t, tho principal was jfcsponsiblo only to a certain. extent ; but if ho ratiHed any engagement, he was responsible for the wholel. .Slight evidence of ratification was only necessary. In this case there was no doubt. a 1 out it.. The agency was complete by the ratification of tVo defendant. Tho only question was om\of amount. Fourteen days' absence;, atfd certain travelling cxpontses, must bo deducted from tho claim. Tho losing mounts were in the contract, and an the ten per cent,, was, by the contract, on nil stakes won l^ Stormbird and Virginia, it must he allowed whether tho plaintiff rodo or not. TLu passage-money from and to Melbourne was also in the contract. Judgment for tho plaintift, for tho amount ..f L<!() J(h.

Howorth v. Brunton.—A claim of L-liT, professional costs. Mr Stewart appeared for the defendant. Tho Magistrate considered that all tho points of the defence wero consistent with the plaintiffs case, :.nd <»ftve judgment for the plaintiff.

Watson and Sons ». W. Bt.ll>y.—A claim of LO'J 83 10.1. Judgment, by dofatilt, for the plaintiff.

Adjo\nned.—Tho cases of Bennett v. Winter, and M'Nab v. Thomson, were adjourned for a fortnight.