MAGISTERIAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 3933, 25 November 1880, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHUROH. This Day. (Before J. P. Jameson and J. Birch, Eeqs.) Dbttnkenness.— A first offender was fined sa. CITIX CASES. (Before John Olivier and J. E. Parker, Esqa.) Miscellaneous.— City Council v. Oilman, claim £8 8s lOd, judgment by default. — Echberg v. Sycamore and Sycamore v. Echberg, cases adjourned - until Wednesday next. — Hintcn r. Marshall, claim £3 14s 2d, judgment for plaintiff, to be paid by instalments, 15a monthly.— Prina and Ellis t. Allen, claim £9 19s 6d. Defendant consented to judgment. Hayjian t. Lety.— Claim, £7 16b 3d. Mr Joyce for plaintiff, Mr Btringer for defendaut. It appeared that 25,000 cigarettes were sold to defendant in May last, he to pay duty, independent of which the price was 22s 6d per thousand. With duty, the price would be about 455. Duty waß to be paid cash down, and the value of the cigarettes was placed to credit. Levy gave a cheque for the duty. The Customs found 3s 6d had been charged in error instead of 6d, and witness paid it through hia agent. He demanded the extra duty from Mr Levy, who refuaed to pay it, stating that he was only paying 3a 6d duty himself, and that the 6s waa an overcharge. Previous salea with Levy had been duty paid. To Mr Stringer : had never before sold cigarettes, except duty paid ; but could nofc say Levy had bought in that way. Witnesa cleared the whole case, 100,000, and sent a fourth to Levy. In bond, always expected duty cash down. The duty originally charged was paid on May 5, and the invoice for extra duty was dated Juno 24. J. T. Hart, cashier in the Customs, deposed that the cigarettes were passed at 3s 6d per lb. " The merchant makes his own entry, and wo ought to have discovered the error." On the entriea going for audit, the error waa pointed out, and on June 9 the extra claim made was paid. There were two or three instancea of a aimilar error. Mr Joyce : Then it was simply an error on fcho part of the part of the Customs ? Witness : An error on the part of the merchant, in paying the wrong duty. (Laughter). Mr Joyce : Very good ; lhe Customs never make an error. No evidence was called for the defence, but Mr Stringer submitted that there was in thia case no question of agency. There was a fixed price with duty added. The goods were cleared before the sale, and the burden of the mistake must be borne by Hayman. Further, if plaintiff had any rights in the matter, he slept on those rights for, at any rate, a forfc. nighfc. A general mistake had been made, without fraud or collusion, and as the parties could not be restored to the previously existing conditions, the Bench could give no assistance, this being the principle laid down in "Berr on Mistakes." The Bench, while regarding the case as a hard one, so far as Levy waa concerned, thought there waa no doubt the goods wero sold at a price, plus the duty, whatever ifc might bo. Judgment would, therefore, be for plaintiff, with costs. Mr Stringer, the amount being under £20, askod for leavo to appeal. Leave was granted. Fleming t. Habbis. — Claim £3 18?, balance due on sale of a billiard table. Defendant's evidence was beforo the Court in writing, and was in effect that he had deducted the amount in dispute as commission. Tho plaintiff, Jubal Fleming, advertised' a billiard table for sale, and plaintiff wrote in reply. Several letters pussed, but plaintiff had never recognised the defendant aa an agent. His offer was to sell the table for £75, on tho terms stated in one of defendant's letters — a cheque for £40, and a three months' bill for the balance. He contended tbat the letters showed defendant to be an agent for some third party. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs. Simpson* t. Ayres (Kaiapoi).— Claim £17 13s Id. Mr Stringer for defendant, whose contention was that Mr Simpson had not given credit for all moneys paid. Plaintiff now admitted baving discovered an error made by hia clerk, the claim being thereby reduced to £12 13a Id. Judgment accordingly. Bbyen t. Venabi.es.— Claim £8 15. Mr Izard for tho defendant. Plaintiff efiitned £5 5s for work done in building u house, and tho remainder for damages. A dispu f e arose, and plaintiff waa told to go out or he would be kicked out. Oa returning for some tools ho could not gain admittance. He asserted thub thero was a written agreement, which waa duly signed by him and by tbo conditions of which he was porfectly willing to abide. On tho other sido it was as positively asserted that there wna no Bigned document, onlj- a memorandum of particulars ; and thnt these particulars were ignored bj plaint iff, and that tho work was being done in a disgraceful manner. Corroborative evidence wus givon as to tha nature of tho work done. Judgment was given for Iho sum of £5 5^ the Bench considering that plaintiff was within two or threo hours of tlie completion of hia work, and ought to have been allowed to finish. It could then have been judged on its merits. THOMPSON T. FOWXEB. Claim £R 33 Bd. Defendant had, apparently, como into Court becuuse of two errors ol la Gd and 4ci. Judgment for £6 U 4d.