Magistrate's Court.

Southland Times, Issue 19035, 1 May 1903, Page 4

Magistrate's Court.

THURSDAY, 30th APRIL

Mr S. E. McCarthy, R.M )

UNDEFENDED

Southland County Council v. W. Curren, claim 13s Id, costs £1 ; Undaunted Gold Mining Co. (in liquidation) v. F. M. Lee, claim £45 for. calls, costs £3 9s 6d ; same v. A. Simpson (Orepuki), claim £7, costs ill 6s Gd.

GOODS DELIVERED

Nightcaps Coal Company v. Matthews (Benmore), claim £3 15s 3d, for coal delivered.— Mr C. S. Longuet for plaintiffs, Mr Wsyde for defendant. — Counsel for defence announced that the order and receipt of the coal was admitted, but tho defendant was dissatisfied with the quality.

Mr Longuet said that evidence would be brought to show that the coal was Of the ordinary quality, nsid was supplied about nve months ago. During that time no complaint had been made, and the coal had been accepted, and as

far as the plaintiffs knew, was used. It

was a question whether the defendant should not have rejected the coal at once if it was of inferior quality, or at •any. rate made some complaint.

W. Handyside, managing director Nightcaps Coal Company, gave evidence that the coal -was ordered at tho end of November, and delivered by the first of December. Accounts had been sent to the defendant, but he had taken no no-'

tice of them. To Mr Wftrie

plaints had been received about tho coal sent to other people at the same time.

J.-Loyd, manager at the mine, said that the truck consigned to Matthews ■was of the best coal. A process was adopted to secure the best class of coal by screening into the trucks. There was no possibility of the inferior coal getting into the best trucks. To Mr Wade: Did not see this particular truck loaded.

It might occur that a second-class truck might bo sent in mistake, but it was not probable. Inferior coat was marked at .the mine, and would not bo used -when the best class was required.

Evidence was given relating to the process of screening and trucking, to snow that it was improbable that any

mistake would be made

Mr Wade, for the defence, said thai} the defendant received a truck of coal purporting to be first-class coei, but it

turned out very bad. He had hoped that

it would improve as he unloaded, but he found that the bulk was screenings and other stuff he could not mafte use of. Counsel admitted that defendant should at once have sent a rejection notice, but he did not do so. His only explanation was that it might improve as he went on, but unfortunately it turned out to be utterly valueless for fuel purposes.

Defendant gave evidence admitting the receipt of a truck of coal. It was of very bad quality and was useless for

household fuel, as it would not burn at all. He did not send word to the coin-

pany as he thought the coal migEt improve as it got dryer. H© intended to

come to town at Easter, and try to make some arrangement, but received a

summons previous to that- To Mr Longuet: There were some lumps on the 'top, but the body of the truck was filled with screenings. Had made no complaint until he received the summons. Sidney Matthws, son of defendant, also gave evidence. The Magistrate held that the defend-

ant in his evidence, had admitted that he saw the coal was not according to order, and with that knowledge be proceeded to use it. On that ground alono plaintiff was entitled to succeed. Defendant also had not rejected the coal within a reasona-ble time, and rejection in the witness-box five months after the coal had been delivered was altogether too ridiculous". Judgment was given for amount claimed, and cost 9 £3 13s.

MISTAKBN IDENTITY

Undaunted Goldanining Co. (in llquid-

ation) v. John Keith (Papatotara), *■ claim £18 unpaid calls. Mr Lillicrap

appeared for the company, and" Mr W. Macalister for defendant.

A- Otway, secretary of the company, proved the issue of shares and notice of calls to a certain John Keith, described as "miner, Orepuki." The company had gone into voluntary liquidation, and notices were sent to shareholders.

Defendant gave evidence emphatically denying that he' had ever taken out shares in the company, or' paid any money whatever to it. He had never been employed as a miner at Orepuki, and the only time he wortoed there was for one day .on the railway. He denied the" writing on the application for shares -was his.

His Worship* directed the defendant to Wite hia name and several quotations from the application, and on scrutinising them declared that the handwriting was entirely different. Mr IJllicrap agreed to accept a non-suit, and costs ■were given against the company for £3 2s 7d.