CIVIL SIDE.

Thames Star, Volume VI, Issue 1854, 11 December 1874, Page 2

CIVIL SIDE.

ADJOTJBNED CASES.

James Rae v. John Norton.—Claim for payment of £17 10s, the amount of a promisory note. Adjourned for a week. Gr. Hulme v. J. Mitchell.—Claim of kS3 16s Id, for goods. Mr Tyler appeared ijbr defendant, who is not in the district, and said thexlefendant might be labouring under some misapprehension as regards the time at which the case was to come off. Under these circumstances, he asked the Court to adjourn the case to somo period which would allow time. The case was-adjourned to Bth January.

Defended Cases,

AGNES BAXTER V. DAVID SPENCE.

This was a claim of £13 16s goods sold and delivered. 7

Mr Carnell for plaintiff, who was examined as to the amount of the debt.

There was no appearance of defendant, and judgement was given for the amount claimed and costs, £2 6s.

FBANZ SCHEBFF V. O. H. IAMONT,

This was a claim of £3 15s for rent. A set off was filed.

Mr Macdonald appeared for plaintiff and took an objection that the plaintiff had had no notice of set off, and the plaintiff would not recognise it.

Mr Dodd said the defendant was not in a position to give notice, as the summons was informal, the name, residence, and occupation of both parties being omitted. He submitted that the case should be struck out.

It appeared that the actual plaintiff had occupied an obscure position in the proceedings. The information was laid by Mr Heldt, who was ignorant of the correct form of.procedure. His "Worship said it was the fault of the Clerk, he not having filled in the form-

The case was struck out,

M'KOBEETS V. BINNEY.

Mr Tyler with Mr Macdonald for plaintiff; Mr Brassey for defendant. This was a case of detinue, the claim being £37 5s 6d. The plaintiff, it appeared, had entrusted to Mr Binney bonded goods, and Mr Binney had transferred the goods from his store to that of Osborne Bros,, but in his (Mr Binney's) name, and plaintiff now sued for recovery of the goods, or the value. The charge made by the defendant for receiving, delivery, and storage was objected to as unreasonable, and he had refused to surrender the goods at the time plaintiff tendered. Mr Brassey said Mr Binney, who had not kept the bond accounts at the time of making out the bill, admitted that the charge was rather larger than it should have been.

John Osborne deposed that he was agent for Mr Binney. Had a bonded store. Had goods in it. Had the package and the box represented by certificates produced in his bond. Recognised one, which had been in his bond as E. 170, and was cleared on the 13th May by Mr McKoberts on Mr Binney's certificate. Had conversation with Mr Binney about this actionJ The first one was about October. A package of tobacco was cleared by Mr Mcßoberts, and finding it was., bonded by Mr Binney asked him if he would transfer the box as it was cleared by Mr McKoberts.

(Didn't think the certificate produced represented the box he referred to—No. E 1 71.) Mr Binney replied that he could clear it if he (witness) would add £1 to his charges, which witness refused to do. Had a subsequent conversation with Mr Binney, who said he found that there was a larger amount due to him than he had thought. Received a note from Mr Binney 10 days ago requesting him to deliver the tobacco. Bad a case now in bond, marked E 1 69, which hal not been cleared. The reason he did not transfer to Mr Mcßoberts was that he was holding for Mr Binney. He told him not to transfer unless £1 was paid. The £1 referred to the case not cleared. The package was now in the free store; the box was in the bonded store. Mr Binney had instructed '"witness several times not to deliver the goods until the account was paid. Mr Binney had mentioned other sums besides the £1. The amounts mentioned were represented in the bill produced. Witness' account—to which Mir Binney wanted him to add £1— amounted to £ldss. That was for four cases. The rent due on the two cases would be about £1 Is. Witness charged 3d per week. The value of the tobacco would be Is 5d to Is 6d per lb. The duty was 2s 6d, which had been paid «n the small box. Tfee tobacco was worth that to the wholesale buyer By Mr Binney—Mr Mcßoberts never tendered me a warrant for the certificate of bondage. The box in bond could not have been taken from the store until the duty was paid. I should be responsible for the duty* if the tobacco were to go out of my store before it was paid. I remember receiving the order produced from Mr Binney. When I showed it to Mr Mcßoberts, he said it was too latehe had taken action.

By Mr Tyler— I received the goods from Mr Binney. The order I should consider sufficient authorty to transfer the goods. His Worship did not see how the case could proceed in the face of that order. Mr Macdonald said they chiefly relied upon that order to support their case. The order was not given until after action had been taken by plaintiff. James McEoberts was examined, and his evidence went to show that Mr Binney had never charged more than a penny per week when he had a bonded store of his own, but that he had, without intimation, charged threepence per week when he gave up his own bonded store and put them in that of Mr Osborne.

Mr Tyler put in an account for rental of bonded goods, in which Mr Binney charged only Id per week. Mr Brassey objected to this document being put in, unless it referred to the particular goods which were the subject matter of this action.

The Court failed to see what good could be attained by putting the account in evidence—the witness had just stated all it could tell.

Mr Tyler said the account was necessary evidence, and proceeded to examine witness as to this, when the Bench asked counsel to conduct the case with some decency. Mr Tyler replied with some warmth, and His "Worship then said he would adjourn the Court for an hour to admit of counsel's, feelings becoming, cool. The learned counsel expressed a hope that the adjournment would work a like beneficial effect upon His Worship. The Court; was adjourned accordingly. On resuming, further evidence^, was taken, and counsel addressed the Court.

Judgment was ultimately given for the plaintiff, with costs, which amounted to about £6, but a reduction was made of £2. •' ■ ■' :

The Court then rose.