Monday, 3rd March.

Otago Witness, Issue 536, 8 March 1862, Page 3

Monday, 3rd March.

(Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R. M.)

IsRtfj}fcEK"A'Es&.— Michael MorffiSon wpas6hnr'g<M/|w p as6hnr'g<M/| with being drunk, but ns ho Sad been in th'o lodeup .since early on Saturday, he' was 'dismssscii. ' ~ Nicholas Westj'llonry "Maxwell, James MUls^ and George Simmons, were each lined 20s. for a similar offence. * ' ( '<'* Ixdecuncy. — Ch.irlcs Sullivan, was fined ss. and ' costs for i :deccnt exposure of bis person. J. S. Dodds, v. Jonls, Bird & *Co. — This was an action brought, against the - defendants, as the agents oftheship"CommodorcPerry," for anexeefs of lighterage charged' on certain h:iy and chaff consigned to them by that ship,-by Messrs. Aspinwall of Melbourne, on' account of plaintiff. ' It appeared that as the "Commodore Perry" was a very large ship, she had'disch'arged Her cargo at £j'ie*HeafisjT instead of at' fort Chalmers, where they had by Bill of Lading contracted to deliver, the* * excess of lighterage complained of was, the amount of lighterage from the Heads to the Port. . Mr. Prendcrgast appeared on behalf of the piuintift", and Mr. South for the defendants. The hitler gentleman contended that in the Bill of Lading, &c, there was no mention of Mr. Dodds, and that his clients did not recognise him at all. They had by direction of Mr. Aspinwall, sold the hay, and handed over half the net profits to Mr. Dodds, be- ' yond that they had nothing to do with the plaintiff, and did not recognise him in the transaction at all. There was nothing to connect Mr. Dodd<j with Mr. Aspinwall whatever. Mr. Prendergnst contended that Messrs. Jones, Bird & Co. we: 6 clearly the agents of Mr. Aspinwall, and were therefore liable for the performance of thei r contracts. The contract was, to bring the hay to Port Chalmers, and any charges incurred in bringing it there would have to be borne by them, not by the plaintiff, who had already pnid'the Messrs. . Aspinwall for it in Melbourne. Decision was re- ' served.