KAIAPOI.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 30, 17 June 1868, Page 3

KAIAPOI.

(Boforo W. B. Paull, Esq., H.M., and C. Dudloyi Esq.) ])ißba(ibd Oatti/M Aot.— l). Tlbbots was charged with having driven a bullock from fclio infected utotrtafc on to tho Kninpoi Inland, contrary to tlio Act provided in that behalf, Defendant pleaded ignorance Oottulttblo Judgo, being Bwprn, uttvtcd that defendant hnd driven ft bullock over fwm tho lnfoctcd district atO o'clock at night ; ho hnd brought tho boaftt ovor tho ford, and not ovor tlio bridge Win, Stonyor statod that tho bullook had boon brought ovor to bin mill in a dray i he told him ho had tlono foolishly in no doing, and that) if ho took the boost back, ho might hoar no moro of it, Coiistablo Judgo obaorved that defendant saved himself a vory UUIo dlotauco and ran groat risk in fording tho river at night, and ho thought by that ha muflt havo known ho wn» doing wrong. Do fondant stated that he returned by tho way ho went, Tlio Bench wcro of opinion that tho act was done wilfully, and fined riofondant J615, and costs t at tlio samo time, they informud him that ho had laid himself open to a lino of £150. 01 Yin CA.BKB, Nbwniiam anj> Co. v, M'lUno.— Claim Ids. Judgment for plaintiff, and eonts. JOHttVU KUHVLKY V. ItOHBRT ASHWOnTII, — Claim JC23 fls (id. Judgment for plaintiff, IfIAAO WIJMJON V. KOJIKHT AMD MAMOKL Wilson.— Adjourned ciwo, Mr Joynt for defendants Claim Ml ICs Id. Tlio sum of MO 14s wn« paid into Court. Tho claim w«» for damages alleged to havo boon bustallied owing to defondant'e having engaged him to thresh corn, und then withdrawn * certain quantity, by which ho had incurred a loss of 1J.6, tho threshing of the other corn having boon a loss to him, Sovoral witnesses woro examined for tin -plaintiff and tho do,* fcudantfl. Tho Court ultimately gave judgment for £5 00, and costs, a set oft! of Us bolng allowod, Huvitt.h anj> Co. y, It. >J. Wood,— Mr Joynt for plaintiff and Mr Wynn Williams for dofondant. Tlilb wag a claim for £7G allogod to have been duo from defendant to plaintiff on account of grain. The plaintiff \x\io keeps a grain storo at KtUjApol, remembered making an ttflCo^llient with plaintiff for ront of a loft— £) Mhtl dglit months was agreed upon. The 'fffcrocuiGtit was to torminato iw «oo« «a Mr Wood Bhould quit tho grain, Tho term quit was an unusual ono, it was MrWood'a, nnd ho had objected to it, It was distinctly understood between thorn that it should moan whon tho corn was sold. After that ho was to look to tho purohascr, On tho Oth of August ho rccolvod ft noMco from Mr Uuddlo, Mr Jkownoll'o agent, to ohango tho ontry in Mb booktf from Mr Wood to Mr JJrowncll, lh) uii'lcratood ho had thon quitted (ho grain in tornis of tho agreement Ho hoard aftcrwardß from Mr HrownoU tI»U Messrs Du«s and Hopworth had agreed to glvo him stow, ago till Novombor Ist froo of oliargo. Ho told Messrs Buas and Hopworth on tho avtl or oth of December that lio claimed . X7B from Mr Wood on account of tho gmln etorago, or olso ho would not lot tho grain go. Thoy objected to ' tho charge, but stated that thoy Imd no funuß of Mr Wootl'u in hand, but that H )>o Imd ftuy claim agaUwb Mr Wood they would bco It paid on bis roturn, On the faith of this, lio lot tho corn go, Mr Wood held out no an inducement to him tho probability that porhapa tho gt'ulu might not remain thoro two months, £100 ront was too littlo for 8 months, Croosoxaminod by Mr Wynn WilUwnas II« undo?, ntood, tlmfc when tho corn was sold, oven if sold next day, ho should recolvo tho whole jC 1 00, and look to tho buyer lor Btorngo after Hurt, Jttinofl Crnlg stfttod thtvt ho vtm in the employ of itovoll and Co. no li<j«r<l Mr Hovoll mivko tho claim on Buss and Hep* worth, defendants agents, for X75. Thoy objeotod to it, but said if Mr Itevoll had any claim thoy would bco it paid whon Mr Wood camo out. Thlfl waß tho oa«o for tho plaintiffs. Mr Wynn Willlami submitted that tlio caso should go no further, Plaintiff* ntuafc bo nonauited. Both plaintiffs and their clork had proved that the jmyniont by Mr Wood wan contingent on Ills owing it i if-nny ono owed the amount, it was Mr Brownell. Mr Joynt contended that tho plaintiffs had mado out a enflo, • Tho true light to look at it was this i Wood waittod his grain fltorod lor a lump huih, instead of tho usual chargo, Tho parties ran a mutual risk. By defendant's own act ho was prevented from charging Rrow« noil. Ho would submit to tho Court that thin act wan never contemplated between tho parties [ tho grain changed hands, and a constructive dollvory between tho partlos had taken place Trom tlmt timo tho profit to Rovell nnd Co. should havo accrued, Undor ordinary clrcum»ti\nccs it Bhould havo been charged againet Brownoll, but this thoy wcro barred from doing by defendant's own aoti Mr Williami obflorvcu that tho act o£ dofottdant did not provonfc Ilovcll and Co, recovering tho amount from Hrownoll. Thon Drownoll would htvvo bad his remedy against his oliont, Tho Bmiah nonaaltcA plftlnti/T on this ground, Bakkii and Wir,BON v, John PK«ntJf.-— Claim M I 0». A portion of tl/o monoy was paid into Court } tho rest defendant brought evidence to prove was an ovorohargo. The plaintiff was nonsuited, with conta, Tlio lleoneo of thoKalnpoi Hotel wuh granted to Qt. V, Day, all tho conditlonfl Imposed at tho adjourned licensing mooting having been flatialuctorlly complied with.