RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2044, 23 July 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

?.V'-T-;; i .THIS>.DAT.- :■:.■:,■;: " (Before W. Feaser Esq., R.M.) C#IL SIDE. G. W. BINNEY V. D. SNODGBASS.

Claim, £32 6s. (£lB 6s and £1 14s paid into Court) - - Mr Brassey for plaintiff; Mr Maodonald for defendant. ;

.Mr.Brassey stated that he could not accept the £20 paid'infcO;Court, and called Edwin Binney whosaid s I am agent for the plaintiff, *G; W. Binney of Auckland. I have not received payment for a ton of flour which the defendant admits having received. I'have hot received the amount. ',■"

By- Mr Macdonald : I have not brought my books with me. I do. not remember Teceiving the amount. I give receipts when I receive money. I have not given a receipt to the defendant. .

Mr- Macdonald here produced a receipt-, -which "Mr Binney admitted was in his hand-writing. : Judgement for defendant with costs £3 6s.

Mr Binney spoke of the trouble and expense he hadbeen put to 'by going; to Ohjnemuri to endeavour to settle the business amicably, which might; have been done if tlie repeipt had peen produced.

J. MOBEOW V. J. SPKAOTE. Claim £7 for work done. Adjourned pro forma until August 6th.. *

; BOBEETSKEEN Y. |(JEOEGE ATKINS, vj ' Claim 10s, for rates. . ! Mr Macdonald for plaintiff. i i .o'Tljev-deferiaanb:having been 'brought ibciforcrthe Court rbcfore and the case . allowed.tb;;lapse, His Worship gave judg|inent against him, but without costs. ■i\ !/B9BEi.T SKEEN^V. &EOBGE ATKINS Kj I;: Clatni>los,:ipr rates;; j ; ; k,lnthis~case> which was similar to the previous one and taken with it, the de-' fendant was ordered to pay 15s (3d, in. all, but ho costs were allowed. ■ ■-Ss*sne^«H;.K*BßlA^^ This was a case for ejectment, but the defendant having befn summoned in a wrong name, His -Worship directed a ffelhs;Bummons;---tp:r be?- issued^fevzncxfc court day. ./Thomas Aitkins, however, subsequently appearing tlie case was gonp on with:" "'■-.'■ ' ■.-■-■;,- - -._.-; . His Worship said there could be-np defence .as^hQ- had ;exarmned- tKe Jitles -and found, th^fecorrect. : j : . \ Mr Macdoinald';•■ stated;that-' -tlie nbticb to quit had also been served in the wrong Christian name. ...■;■ „,_ ,1, .. . ,; » j6hn^Brian>;said .rMyV^am& is{:Johli Brian. I gave" the notice to quit to.defeni ..4ant>/wife.-/;'Deifendant;';owed me sii "sMliirigs at the tinfei: ■;■ Defeudiatnt'i'^poke to: me when I gave, the notice through. j the-partition, he said he could not read in the dark; He has'paid wib" no money since. He had undertaken to keep the premises in good repair, "which he^has failed 1 to -do.;; \An'd so Bwant to be,£j!iii£ of him. The rent was to be paid weeJcly at six shillings 1-wifek. I generally, fot >. convenience.-.sake,, receiy.ed it every fort-> nigh|.iiL-v_^:%";"; ; '^.:' .-,' '^t^-. --:: y--\-His Worship ordered that possession be given before 31st'instant, and the sik shillings be paid by defendant, and cost* .-'.,'■ XiD;jSNpi)GBASS;T. Ei-BINSTEY. ; _ ; ; j : 'hP Claim IoT £12 iiSs^lor^od^;-" :^' ;j -. : MivMacdonald for- plaintiff;,.Mr .Brassey' "forclefendaht. o ; '':" . " ' i : :,«:Mr, Br!assey r s,aid:that Jt-might shprten the'ease if he sirated that the' defence" was ;that;the/goods supplied had.been ..sentl-tb Mr Binney : to sell on commission." 1 . ''f David .fenodgrass,":;, called, said—The defence is .not true." 1 supplied five bags ■ of biscuits at £1. a -bag, and "subsequently sixl)agsonthe same terms. 1 Mrßinheyhad scnt^ine^ sdiife -badrflonr'; it;"wa3itbo bad. to use;: arid; he" ? told -inej that if I mixed good, flour with:;it-an.d; made it into biscuits," -he would^■'-' buy: them from;::me. fßarron? was on ipiremisea^-whenj^ihii: • arrangement was'made^ 7;^ : :^ ; By Mr Brassey;:i;T r did; not send thf-! biscuits for sale pri;cbmmissiori. ;i William Bar^Oßf^eposed—l was with Mr Snodgrass'ifl January last. 1,/hear|l a conversation betweed Messrs Binney and Snodgrass about some bad flbur.Mr Binney said we were to mix it with, good flour and, he would give a polind a hundred. . '" •

By Mr Brassey—The conversation took place in the kitchen of Mr Snodgrass. I am not sure that I know Mr Binney. David, Snodgrass, re-called by Mr Brassey—The flour I bought in January was bad flour. Mr "Binney guaranteed me good sound biscuit flour. I did not know it was inferior when I bought it. Mr Binney induced me make these biscuits for himself.

,Edwin Binney stated that Mr Snodgrass originally lived at Punga flat. He wished to move, and said if he could get some inferior flour, he could spend his time in making it up into biscuits. The flour was delivered, and sent to me for sale. I sold them on commission. I do not remember having seen the last witness. I sold the biscuits. The bags were left" at the store when plaintiff was going to Ohinemuri. I did not want to buy any bags, but he said, well, I will send them in, and you do the best you can with them. The bags are still there. By Mr Macdonald —I have the amount I received for the biscuits. Snodgrass never asked me for an account of the sales.

The counsel on either side having spoken, His Worship said he must take Snodgrass's version, as he was supported by an independent witness—judgment for defendant with costs £4 10.

P. BENNETT V. W. H. CASSIN. This was a claim of £18 for wages. Mr Macdonald for plaintiff; Mr Brasfor defendant.

The agreement between the two parties was allowed by both counsels, and the case simply resolved itself into a question of law, whether one partner could sue another.

Mr Macdonald argued that such a course was possible under certain circumstances, and that one partner could sue another in a case where the amount claimed did not involve the partnership accounts. That the agreement was that Bennett and Cassin should be half - partners in the Parawai Gardens, and share the profitand loss equally, and that Cassia was to pay Bennett £S per week which'amount was to be refunded out of the profits, if any, which might accrue to Bennett. He argued that there was a diiference between the words prepayment " and"" accounting for," and therefore Bennett could sue. "Mr Bra^sey argued that Cassin was simply advancing money to be refunded when a balance was struck between the partners, no matter whether profit or loss resulted from the undertaking. His Worship reserved his judgment until Monday, on the distinct understanding that -judgment would be for plaintiff. ■The other caßes were settled out of Court or withdrawn.

The Court then, adjourned.,