Resident Magistrate's Court

Southland Times, Issue 9283, 30 July 1886, Page 2

Resident Magistrate's Court

<+ Thursday, 29th July. (Before H. McCullocb, Esq., 8.M.) JUDGMENT. Buchanan and Co, v, W. E. P. Scott.— Mr Finn for tbe plaintiff, and Mr T. P. Finn for the defendant. — In delivering judgment in this case, heard on the previous Court day, his Worship said it appears from the evidence that Mr Willett says that he told the defendant to sell by sample, and that he did not authorise him to sell as Oamaru flour. The defendant gave Mr Roope some of this flour to sell for him on half commission, and says " I instructed Roope to sell as fair household floor as my principal had told me." Mr Roope sells to the plaintiff five tons of the flour at L 8 10a per ton with a warranty that it was Oamaru flour, good, sound flour, for baker's use. The plaintiffs then Bent 33 bags of the Hour to Lumaden to Mr Stanford, and, on sth April, the plaintiffs gave defendant a promiisory note for L4l la sd, in payment of the five tons of flour, which he ultimately paid. Before accepting the note Mr Irvine said to defendant, ll Before I accept this bill you must tell me it ib sound flour fit for bakers' use." The defendant replied, " Yea ; it is guaranteed to be ao by my principal," so --that, supposing the warranty by Roope to have been without authority — which I do not think it was — it was fully ratified by tho defendant on the sth April. The 33 bags sent to Mr Stanford at Lumaden were sold by him to Mr Greydon. the baker. He baked two bags at one baking. He says it was dark ; the bread didn't rise half its size ; that it wa3 weak flour made from grown wheat ; and had a bitter taste, and his customers would not take it ; it was not fit to send out ; and, ia short, he returned all but tbe two bags to Stanford, who returned it to plaintiffs. Brackenridge and Irvine also gave evidence as to the badness of the floor.— Judgment for plaintiffs for L4O 17a lid, with coats, L 8 13s. UNDEFENDED CASES. In the following undefended cases judgments were given for the plaintiffs for the amounts claimed :— J. R. Smith v. P. Kaidy, L32b 6d and costs, 9s ; Southland County Council v. John Mclntoab, L 6 5s and costs, 10s ; Wertheim Sewing Machine Co. v. Patrick Henlsy, L 9 15s and ooits, L 2 ; Scottish and New Zealand Co. v. J. K. Lea, L 32 16s 4d and costs, L 3 12a • Lind hurst Road Board v. John Gray LI lla and costs, 10s. ' Matheaon and Co. v. Joseph Lyle Claim, L 7 14s 9d on a judgment summons. —Order made for immediate payment with costs, 10s ; ia default, one week's imprisonment. DEFENDED CASES, Lindhurst Road Board v. Win, Oiark — Claim L 2 13a 9d for rates.— The defendant stated that be was no longer the owner of the property for which he was rated.— E. Taylor, clerk to the Road Board, gave evidence to the effect that the defendnnt had been occupier of the property for nine months of the year for which he was rated. For the ensuing ye^r _(c was not rated for the same property. — Judgment for amount olaimed and costs, 12s. Jasv Donnelly v. Thoa. Mason. — Claim, L 6 _s 5d on a judgment summons. — Mr T. P.Finn appeared for the plaintiff. — The defendant pleaded inability to pay, and after iris evidence had been ta^eg tfce. q M^

was adjourned for a month on the application of the plaintiffs counsel. David Kirkland v. George Gilchrist.— Claim, Ll7 as Balance of wages due.— Mr Finn for plaintiff and Mr O'Reilley for defendant. — The case for the defence was that sumß had been paid on behalf of the plaintiff, on orders given by him, which amounted to more than had actually been . due to him at wages.— After evidence had been Uken the plaintiff was non-suited with, costs Ll 4s.