Magisterial.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 52, 14 July 1868, Page 3

Magisterial.

OIIHISTCIIUROII. . Tins Day, (Boforo 0. 0. Uowon, Eoq., U.M.) Thero wcro no police cases sot down for hoarlhgi CIVIL OABIIB. Wir,LUM SiATJiU v, Gko. Simpson.— Z\ -h Mi Expenses claimed In connciiucnco of non-fulfllmcut of contraot, nml for good* fliippllod. MrHlntcrforplnintiiT, I'livitvtlfC'rt case was that defondont on tho Sth Rfarclt biflt, agreed to do Homo thronhlug for him for XlO por day, tho mitahluc and coals to bo brought on to the ground rwirty for him to commence work. Thl« wan dono by plaintiff, an al«o a portion of tho threshing } when tho (iroMing bolng very u»>tiUisfactory, plaintiff complained on tho ground of tin not being lit for tlio market. DcfoiuluiH'fl foroman then stopped the machlno, aud it was subsequently ti»kc» away, a« nlrio woro tho comlh which plaintiff, hud carted from Chrtatchuroh. Plaint Iff had also engaged two mon to n«sl-t at the machine, and tholr wages wcro lout in coiucquonco of tho work being stopped, In apportion to the claim, defendant stated tho caum) of the tbrcfthlng boing improperly dono, wus tho wot condition In which tho stacks wcro from tho heavy rains. Ho had not agreed to produco a marketablo eamplc, and plaintiff had no right or authority to employ tho men whoso wages bo claimed, I'tttlntlfl' had I him»olf told tho foreman to discontinue work hb ho said ito could do It batter with his horsepowor machine Dcfcndant'n foroman cor-j roborated this statomont. Plaintiff's son, in «(i[ipoi>t of tho claim, snid that ho considered tho impropor dressing to bo tho result of tlio muehlno not buing correctly set, but tho greatest cuUHrt of. compliilnt was tho wiisto from tho lnHUlllelcnoy of prcoimilon to guard against It as wan usually dono in threshing, ills Worolilp Bald tho Bench wcro fliUlxflcd that thoro was no ense for damages as Uio contract had evidently boon broken with tho consent of both parties, judgment would thoroforo bo given for XI 44 lOd for tho goods (supplied, tlio cofltfl to ho divided, Judgment for full amount and costfl was given in tho following eases i—Agnoß llosflack v. W, Koflflller, W 10s j Harris and Goodman v, E. Ilalucs, X2 2a. In tho remaining caseH judgment wasgivon as follows i— <Thosi H Hoblnson v, D, Horn, £0 16h lOd— judgment, £d 8s Oil { Borough Council Vi J, bwlnbourno, X8 los—judgment, Xfl srt,