RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 8209, 14 June 1888, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

• de Wednesday, June 13. j (Before Mr E. H. Carew, 8.M.) - w < Thomas Hunter v. John Joseph.—Claim £2 Bs, jk value of fowls and ducks the property of plaintiff, - and alleged to have beeii destroyed by phosphoriaed ? u oats laid by dofendant on his land, which adjoins a' its highway.—ln this previoualy-heardcnaa his Worship m< gave judgment for the defendant, holding that,- on although defendant might have done n rong in laying poison, he was justified in destroying the fowls. ~ Wy Yeck Company v. W. Owen and Co.-Claim ~! £2 lea lOd. for tobacco iold.—Mr Gallaway appeared nl for plaintiffs; Mr Macdonald for defendants.— an Thomas Dempsey stated that he wn« last year travel- pr. IiHK aa agent for plaintiffs' toboccoß, and he Bold a B j z box of tobacco to the dofendant Owen. Witness u & sent on invoice with the goods, but the former was . • sent back to plaintiffs after a time, while K^lb of the ?° tobacco waß also .returned. The invotte coufd not thj now be produced, as it was destroyed when it came by back.—Mr Macd.naldi We say w« never got the in- w l voice.—Mr Gallaway said he would •Call plaintiffs' y,, manager to prove th*t the invoice lM«3ueen tent to . defendant, returned by him, andthen destroyed.—Ah na Key, manager for plaintiffs, stated that the Invoice °» was duly Bent to defendant, and Ihat it came bad in po a letter. Witness showed it to Dempsey, and .after- e x' wards" threw it into the waste paper basJret.— jr. The witnesß Dempsey, continuing his .evidence, ~ . stated that he saw the invoice when it was returned. tUI Cross-examine-!': The Customs tioketproduceid, with' Be wltneas' name on it, was Bent with the tobacco to sicl defendants-. Nothing was said by witness to de- atl fondants about the Wy Keck Company when he sold yji the tobacco. Witness did not owe Omn any morfey j when he cold him the tobacco; he hud settled an v account due to Owen the rime evening bb he was Injgiven the order.-^Mr Maodonald; We say that thiß wi tobacco came to us from Dempsey, in his name, and in that we always treated him in the principal In the „,,, sale.—Ah Key, re called, Btated that he had asked ° f Dompsey for the monoy, but the latter said that ho OI could not get it, and therefore could uot pay them.- P* Mr Macdouald said that the defence wbb that the ge tobacco was bought from Dempsoy, and that de- irri fendants' chief object in ordering it was to get it as re( part payment of money due to them by Uempsey. The Wy Veck Company were never disclosed in the P° matter, and if bis Worship considered that Dempsey Al] did owe defendants money at the time, ha should, cai counsel submitted, give judgment for defendants, we A promissory note would be put in showing that ra ( Dempsey owed them money at the time.— ,«, After argument, his Worship sugg s.ed that • *■, Mr Macdonald Bbould put in a set-off for tui the amount alleged to be due by Dempsey.—This nn being done, the defendant, William Owen, stated to that when Dempsoy called on him he tad that h« fa had not the money to meet the promissory note, n • but that ha wou'd givo witness a cart, harness, and saddle In part payment, and would also send tobacco P°/ to make up the balance. Witness agreed to take the ad articles and sell them for the purpose of wiping oft of the ,'promisaory note. The articles wtre aenr-, but their value did not cover the amount due by Demp- ■ sey. Witness tad a claim against him for goods uc supplied, as well as for the promissory note, and an about £i was due abo»e the value o£ the articles, mi Witness had sold the cart tor £i and the harness lor ba: £4. Witness knew nothing of tba Wy Yeck Com- j s pany till one day All Key called on him for the w money for tho tobacco. Witness told him he knew nothing of getting tobacco from the company and co; could uot recognise taem in the matter. There was pa aW. Derapsey, aa well aa the witnesß T. Dempaey, he and the account was due by them jointly. The or artioles Bent to witness also belonged to both of them, i ji In giving his decision Mr Carew sai I: The c-iae was a moat unsatisfactory ono. '1 he evidence for the de- ral fence was that the tobacco was bought by the de- tic fendant with an undisclosed principal, and therefore ne he thought he had a right to assume he was dealing tfo with a principal, and also had a right to Bet off an ki] account that was owing to him at the time. The evidence of one of the defendants Is that it was -, correct that certain things were to t*e taken, and ml whatever they realised was to be set off against them Mi Tho other party says that the goods were taken,. w { they were to be valued, and that the valuation, whatever it was, was to be a Bet-off. There was a clear contradiction there. If what one witness lays i» su correct, that Dempßoy agreed to !<ive the tobacco in tv part payment of thoaccount, and that thedefendanti fei knew the tobacco came from the Ohiuese factory, l, n which I think they must have known, that would nn 20 to show that they were partioa to a fraud. It may be true what Owen and Knborts say,' that they did »» not heartho name nfnny Chinaman mentioned, but 11 n(, thosime time Ido not feel satisfied about tho co tnaltur. Judgment fur the plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs.