RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 3252, 9 July 1872, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Slokdav, Bth July. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., ILM.)

Stead v, Erridge. —Thomas Erridge appeared to a summons, issued at the instance of Louis Pearee Stead, to bo examined upon oath to stato the circumstances ho was in when he contracted a certain debt, for which judgment, not yet satisfied, had been given against him, and his present ability to pay. The defendant Maid that several of his creditors at Port Chalmers were pushing him, so he had filed a declaration of insolvency, and that he was not in a position to satisfy the debt. The newspaper containing the declaration having been shown to His Worship, fie said : I cannot sec at this stage that I can move in the matter.—The plaintiff: Hasn't the case something to do with the Fraudulent Debtors Act ? I was told I, could demand cash or imprisonment. His Worship : Yon are told a good many things that arc not correct.—After a while, His Worship said : I think, after looking into the law, I will examine the defendant.—Thomas Erridge, the defendant, being sworn, said : That judgment was given in this Court on the 19th June, 1872, for £7 odd, for goods supplied to him. He had been in constant work for the last mouth on the dredge, and bad, daring that time, made on an average £2 a week. During the six months previous be had not earned a shilling. H© was a married man, with two children and a sickly wife. His Worship : Well, now, can you make any proposal? Defendant: No, your Worship, I can't. My creditors at Port Chalmers are all pushing and threatening me. I have got nothing, and I am in debt. His Worship : How much ? Defendant : A little over £100. The defendant also said that a party had been put on board the dredge that morning in liis place as he had to attend at Conrt, and he was in doubt whether he would get his situation again, not knowing that the other person had been temporarily or permanently appointed, and the case might so be the means of putting him out of his employment. The plaintiff called Mr Douglas, the officer in charge of the dredge, from whom he elicited that the whole of defendant's wages up to the latter snd of last month had been paid. Mr Douglas stated that the defendant's earnings on the dredge for the last 15 months amounted to about £<K». The dredge during that time had been laid up for long intervals; and in answer to plaintiff, he sain there was nothing to prevent the defendant from taking other work during these intervals. The plaintiff, during the case, repeatedly referred to the defendant as the " prisoner," saying he had been "advised" to consider him so; and did so even after His Worship told him to speak of him as the defendant. But, on His Worship sharply Baying to him, " Don't call him the prisoner —since he is a defendant," the plaintiff referred to him tm the defendant. His Worship ; I will consider the legal bearing of the question about this insolvency. There is a very nice point under the Bankruptcy Act to be decided. Plaintiff: Yes, Sir. That's what I was told. A decision was deferred.

Geddes ». Holland.—Claim for coffin, &c, supplied, and hearse used, at the order of the defendant. Judgment waa given for £5, the amount claimed, by default, together with costs.

Talbot -I?. Smith.—Claim of 18s 6d, commission of live per cftnt. on a debt of £18 10s collected. ■ The defendant pleaded not indebted. The plaintiff said that while he did not actually receive the money himself, it was through his; stining up of the creditors that the defendant had got the money. His Worship, after the defendant had been examined, regarded the evidence as conflicting in so far as whether commission was to be charged upon the debts givento plaintiff for collection, or upon the amount actually received by plaintiff. But he was of opinion that defendant had derived benefit from plaintiffs services, and under the circumstances thought something should be allowed him. Judgment was given for plaintiff in the sum of 9a 3d, together with eoste. Foster p. Sweeney.—Claim of £1 11b 6d, for sundry meals and beds supplied by plaintiff, a hotelkeepftr, to defendant. Judgment by default for plaintiff in the amount claimed, together with costs. Zicle i). Lange and Thoneman.—Claim of £40, for 100 gallons of brandy sold to defendants, at os per gallon. Mr Haggitt appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Stoat for defendants. This waa bulk brandy in bond, sold to defendants at an auction sale, and they refused to tako it, on the ground that the brandy was not equal to the sample shown at the sale.

It appeared, for the plaintiff, that he some time ago bought eight quarter-casks of brandy from William Gregg, coffee merchant, at 4s (id per gallon. Two of these he removed from bis bond to the store, and the other six he determined to sell by auction. The brandy was all of one brand. The nix qr.-casks were put up for Bale at Messrs M'Landress, Hepburn, and Go's., on the 11th .June. Through an omission of the plaintiff's clerk, a sample of the brandy woe not procured from the bond for the auction room, so plaintiff, jiwt before the sale, went to hiß store aud took a sample from one of the two quarter casks there, and that formed one of their original lot of eight. The sample was tasted by Thoneman and others prior to the sale. PlaintifF gave the auctioneer a reserve, first of 4b Gd, the cost price, but afterwards told him he might sell it for 4s 4d. Thonemau was the only bidder, and he bought it for 5s per gallon. Afterwards he objected to the sale on the ground that the brandy was not in accordance with the sampls. Plaintiff thereupon procured R. B. Martin, C. It. Howden, James Finch, and William Hepburn, and plaintiff himself, all of whom had long experience in the trade, and they, after tasting, considered the brandy, in th© qr.-cask at his store, from which the sample had been taken, and that of four of the six or.-casks in the bond that had been sold to defendants, as being the same, TLey did not taste the brandy in the other two. The plaintiff had to adopt this course of identifying the quality of the brandj, as the defendants had acted in a very unusxial way in taking away all the sample from the auction room, whereas they they were only entitled to part, and should have left some. It also apjKjared that the brandy in the store had not been mixed in any way, and that a sample from one emsk of a lot of the same brand was considered in the trade as a sample of the whole.

After some remarks from Mr Stout, that even on the showing of plaintiffs own witnesses, it was not proved that four of the casks contained brandy similar to the sample. His Worship said he thought the only question was whether the sample produced at the sale was simitar to the brandy in bond. Evidence was .also ■ given by the plaintiff's clerk and storcman to show that plaintiff filled the sample bottle produced at the sale from the qr-cask in his store referred to, and that the contents oi: that cask bad not been " mixed," or in any way tampered with in the store.

It appeared for the defence that the

brandy in bulk was Greatly inferior to the sample at the Bile. Tho defendant Thoneman being sworn, said that after he compared a sample from one of the casks at the bond with the sample shown at the sale, he was of that opinion. He had refused to take the brandy because tho bulk wa» not in accordance with the sample, and would not gtve^even 2s per gallon for it. As to his not leaving part of the sample at the auction room, when be saw the sample in his office, where he thought his clerk brought it, there were only about two wine glasses-full in it, and that quantity was reduced by further sampling. Robert Wilson, merchant, said that two samples he tasted at the request of the defendant Thoneman were widely different. He (defendant) told him one was part of the sample in the room at the sale, and that another one defendant said had been got from the bond. They were certainly not alike ; the brandy from the bond had a very peculiar flavour, which the other had not J. T. Mackcrras said of the two last samples so described to him by the witness, that from the bond was a coarse brandy with a disagreeable flavour, and the other sample was not.

This was all the evidence to l>o offered

His Worship said he should take time to consider his decision. The case was adjourned till this day week.