RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 574, 27 July 1867, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, July 26. (Before G-. G. FitzGerald, Esq., R.M.) Drunk and Incapable. — James M'Taggart, a lad of 17 years of age, was charged with this offence. His Worship discharged him with a caution. Drunkenness. — John Burke pleaded guilty to this offence and was fined 10s, or iv default, twenty-four hours' imprisonment. A further charge of destroying the waterproof belonging to the constable who arrested him 'on the last charge, was prefored against Burke, lie was ordered to pay L 2, tho value of the property, or in default of payment, to bo imprisoned for four days.

Breach op Police Ordinance. — Madame Bertha was charged by tho police with neglecting to keep the chimney of her house clean, thereby allowing it to catch fire. She was fined L 2 with costs.

Alcorn v. Miller. — Mr Eees for tho plaintiff, Mr Button for the defendant. Plaintiff sought to recover from the defendant, the sum of L3B

4s sd, being balance of account due for goods supplied by plaintiff to the defendant. It appeared that during Mr Alcorn's absence in Melbourne, the defendant called a meeting of his creditors, at which a Mr Rogers, a shop* man in the employ of the plaintiff attended. An agreement was come to, and a document signed, by which each of the creditors agreed to accept a certain sum, in bills gauranteed by a Mr Watson, in lieu of their respective claims. Mr Roger signed tile document in question, on behalf of Mr Alcorn, who declined to acknowledge Mr Roger's authority to sign on his behalf. On signing the document in question, the sum of L 24 11s was given to Mr Rogers by Mr Ecclesfield, who in Mr Alcorn'a absence, handed the amount to Mrs Alcorn. On Mr Alcorn's return he was made acquainted by Mr Rogers of what he had done on his behalf at the meeting of Miller's creditors. The plaintiff credited the defendant with the amount received by Mr Rogers (L 24 11s), and now sought to recover the full amount of his claim, L53 18s 2d (less L 24 11b) and a further credit of LI 2s 9d, for cash received from defendant. Mr Rogers was examined, and stated that he was senior hand in Mr Alcorn's employ, but it did not appear that he was managing for Mr Alcorn in his absence. Mr Button, on behalf of the defendant argued that although Mr Rogers was not originally authorised to act in the matter on behalf of the plaintiff, yet that tho plaintiff having received the money under the agreement, and credited the defendant therewith, had thereby ratified the act of Rogers in entering into the agreement on plaintiffs behalf. Mr Rees replied on behalf of the plaintiff. His worship stated that he was not of opinion that Mr Rogers was authorised to act for Mr Alcorn. Ho could only look upon the sum paid under that agreement as money paid on account. The defendant had not disputed Mr Alcorn's claim, and further the whole transaction was conipleted before Mr Alcorn's return from Melbourne. Judgment was given for the amount claimed, with costs. Mr Button gave notice of appeal

Milter v. Rodgers,— Mr Button for the plaintiff, Mr Rees for the defendant. The plaintiff said that on or about the 21st March, 1867, the defendant, by falsely and deceitfully representing himself to tho plaintiff to be the duly authorised agent for the purpose hereinafter mentioned, S. W. Alcorn, then a creditor of the plaintiff, induced the plaintiff to enter into an agreement with his creditors, and to pay to him certain acceptances guaranteed by one John Dean Watson, and promised that he the said S. W. Alcon would reloase and discharge the plaintiff from the debt then owing by the plaintiff to the said S. W. Alcorn, and afterwards by falsely and deceitfully representing himself as aforosaid obtained from Robert Ecclesfield, as agent of the plaintiff and his creditors, the the sum of 1i24 11s." Yet tbe said defendant at tho time ho so represented himself as aforesaid was not, and the defendant well knew that he was not, the duly-authorised agent of the said S. W. Alcorn, for the purposes aforesaid, to the great damage of the plaintiff. Wherefore the plaintiff seeks to recover the sum of L4O, the particulars of which are as follows: — Amount claimed by Mr Alcorn, L2B 4s sd; loss of time and expenses, Lll 5s 7d. For tho plaintiff it was contended that he was entitled to recover the amount claimed. Mr Alcorn was called, and stated that Mr Rodgers had no authority to enter into the agreement in question on his behalf. Mr Ecclesfield deposed to having paid the defendant the sum of L 24 11s. Evidence was given by the plaintiff that a judgment had that day been recorded against him in favor of Mr Alcorn, for L2B 4s sd, and costs, which he now claimed to recovor from defendant, and that a further sum of Lll 11s 7d had been incurred by him as expenses in travelling, which he now sought to recover from the defendant. For the defendant it was contended that an action for fraud and wrong without damage could not be sustained. The amount L2B 4s 5d which plaintiff sought to recover, it had been decided was owing to Mr Alcorn, consequently the plaintiff had suffered no loss. Had Mr Rogers not gone to the meeting of creditors, the plaintiff would have had to pay Mr Alcorn's claim in full. He therefore had suffered no damage. For tho plaintiff it was contended that the document signed by the creditors appeared to be complete on the face of it, though the fraud of the defendant, and that plaintiff was prevented from recovering it in consequence thereof. His Worship reserved judgment in the case until the following morning.

Alman v. Roberts. — Mr Button for the plaintiff. — For goods supplied, and for value of site and tent sold by plaintiff to defendant. Judgment for L 92 4s lid with costs. Griffiths v. Marks.— Mr Button for the plaintiff, Mr Harvey for tho defendant. — Tho plaintiff saith " that the defendant converted to his own use and wrongfully deprived the plaintiff of the use and possession of the plaintiff's goods, viz. — a diamond ring of the value of L 22." His Worship reserved judgment in this case till the following morning. The Court was then adjourned till eleven o'clock next day.