Monday, 21st November.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 146, 24 November 1870, Page 6

Monday, 21st November.

Gh Lancaster v. It. Lancaster. Claim, LlO. At the request of Mr Copland, the case was withdrawn.

Cowap v. Gamble. Claim, L 9 10s, being loss sustained in consequence of uon-delivery of a bullock sold to plaintiff.

Mr M'Coy for the defence.

The circumstances of the case are these : — Some time ago defendant sold to plaintiff a bullock for L 6, then running at Moa Flat, and paid Is deposit. Some time afterwards the defendant sold t:ie bullock to auother party ; heuce the action.

The plaintiff deposed to the purchase, and stated that his profit on the bullock would have been LLO. The bullock would weigh 800lbs clean, which he woul.l sell for 5d per lb. In consequence of non-delivery, the plaintiff nut only sustained the loss of LlO, but disappointed his customers, as this was the only beast he had for the supply of his customers for the week.

Jb'or the defence, it was stated that the bullock had been sold to plaintiff more than once and he would not take delivery, and the defendant thought that plaintiff was making a fool of him, aud as he had got notice that the bullock had to be cleared off the run, he had no alternative "but to sell him to a party who would take delivery of him.

The Magistrate upon viewing the circumstances of the case, said that judgment would be for plaintiff, but not to the extent claimed. He further remarked tnat if the retail butchers were making a profit on every beast as large as that of plaintiff in this instam-e, they certainly had a good bUciuess on hand. Judgment for L 3, costs of Court, and expenses for two witnesses, and 1 guinea professional fee ; in all amounting to over L 7.

Gamble v. Cowap. Claim, L 3 10s, being the price of 10 bushels of oats at 7s.

Mr M'Coy for defendant.

This case was dismissed as the ground of action was premature, there being still unsettled accounts between the parlies. Execution iv tit\st ca.se was stave.! for l-i< 'lays to enable pl;iiutiif to bring bis action in proper iorm if he so desired.

M'Kay, Chairman of Board of Wardens, v. Sutherland. — Defendant was charged with having received one bull ftoin a mob of cattle under the charge of plaintiff while being driven to the public pound, Lawrence, on Wednesday, November 16. Mr, Gooday appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Copland for defendant.

From the evidence of plaintiff and his witness it appeared that he had instructed two men, Boult and Dumbleton, to scour the ranges and collect all unbranded cattle, bulls and entire horses. On Monday, the 14th, they succeeded in getting two ; on Tuesday and Wednesday they got some move, which amounted together to 13 head of cattle, one entire horse, and one niai*e. They were placed in Boult's paddock, as they were being collected, until a sufficient number were together worth sending to the Lawrence pound. When placed in the paddock the gates »vere locked. The fences were good. On Wednesday Sutherland and another party, of the name of Ryan, entered the paddock, and drove therefrom one red and white bull into Sutherland's Slaughter yard, adjacent to Boult's paddock. The annimal was driven through a small wicket between Boult's and Sutherland's paddock. Whilst in the slaughter yard, Sutherland castrated and branded the bull. The brand was EO, being Oudaille's brand. When charged with the offence, Suthei'land admitted that he had taken the animal from Boult's paddock by order of Mr. Oudaille.

The defence attempted to prove that this animal was not amongst those taken by M'Kay, but the evidence was of a very unsatisfactory characters Mr. Copland addressed the Bench for the defence.

The ■ Magistrate remarked that he was perfectly satisfied from the evidence addued by plaintift' that the animal in question was taken whilst under the charge of plaintiff, and he would fine accused in the sum of £5 and costs.