RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 649, 23 October 1867, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before G. G. Fitzgerald, Esq., R.M.) Tuesday, October 22. There was no criminal business before the Court.

CIVIL CASES

Casey v. Dean. — Adjourned till the 29th inst. A medical certificate was handed in to the effect that the defendant was unable to attend through illness. Harnett v. O'Brien. — Adjournod till the 23rd inst., to enable defendant to file a set-off.

A. Boyle and Co. v. Royse, Mudie and Co. Mr Roes for the plaintiffs; Mr Harvey for the defendants. The plaintiffs sought to recover from the defendants the sum of LlB 10s, being Ll6 10s the value of ten bags of Hart's flour, illegally detained by the defendant, and L 2 loss sustained by the plaintiff, in attempting to obtain possession of the said flour. — Samuel Boyle was called, and deposed that he was a member of the firm of S. Boyle and Co., merchants, Wharf street. He produced a bill of lading for 200 bags of flour, shipped at Melbourne in the Union. Messrs. Hoyse, Mudie and Co. were the agents for the vessel. Witness presented the bill of lading, and demanded delivery of the flour. They at first refused to deliver until a claim of L 5 some odd shillings for general average was satisfied. They ultimately delivered, nineteen tons, withholding one ton until the contribution was paid. Freight was paid ou the whole quantity. Witness sent his cart down on two or three different occasions for tho flour, but the defendants refused to deliver it. That is the loss witness claims for. Crossexamined by Mr Harvey — The nineteen tons were delivered by the defendant's clerk. The captain was present. Witness does not know who the owners are. A person named Dale is said to bo tho captain. He know the defendants were the agents only. Ho did not know what interest they had in her. When Mr Royse asked him for his contribution, hu told him the papers would be sent to Melbourne, aud the average stated there. If more than the exact amount of the contribution was paid, the balance would be returned. The captain was about eight days in port after the claims for general average ha A been made against tho witness. He did not recollect claims being advertised for. — George Johnson deposed that he was a carter in the plaintiffs' employ. He had been sent to defendants' store for some flour. They refused to deliver it. — This closed th<s plaintiffs' case. — Mr Harvey moved for a nonsuit on three grounds. That the plaiutiffs had proved that tho defendants were only acting as agents, and wero not the owners. They had also shown that the goods were detained for a claim of general average, which is a usual custom, and they had not proved damages. Mr Rees in reply contended that the only nonsuit point which could be considered was with reference to the defendants being the agents. Jfo contended that the ! agents when acting for a foreign principle wero bound by their acts. An agent must prove that the claim on which he acts for his principle is a just one. His Worship re-called Mr Boyle, who stated that the price charged for the flour was merely the cost price. They were soiling it at that time at from 10s to Ll a ton in advance of the price he charged. Mr Rees read from Smith's leading cases portions of the case " Patterson v. Gandascqui." Mr Harvey contended that the case quoted by his learned fii nd did not apply in this instance. His Worship remarked that ono nonsuit point had been done away with. As to the point with reference to the general average, the defendants would have to show in this case that the average was struck, and how it was arrivod at. His Worship would not givo an opinion on the third point. Ho would reserve it till the following day. Mr Harvey called William Royse who deposed that ho informed Mr Boyle that in consequence of the Union having to slip her chains and and anchors for the safety of the vessel, ns well as tho .cargo, a claim for general averago had becu mado. Two per cent, on tho amount of tho invoico was being collected, any balance would bo returned. Witness told him he was following out tho instructions of tho captain, who refused to deliver the flour unless plaintiff's contribution was paid. The captain stored tho flour with tho defendant. They held the flour as storemen and not as agents for the Teasel, All other claims tor average had

I boon paid. There were no average rates in Hokitika. ; the habit was to send all accounts to Melbourne, and have the average struck there, The vessel wa3 in port for fifteen or sixteen days. — Crossexamined by Mr Jfiees — Tke iast ton of the flour was kept on board the vessel up to the last moment. The plaiutiffs might have had the whole of their flour three or four days before the vessel left, if they had paid the average.— iiis Worship reserved judgment in tho case till the following day. James v. Mrs Kelly. — A claim for LlO 10s, for wages. Mr Itees appeared for the defendant, and applied that the plaintiff bo nonsuited. His client was a married woman. The summons had been taken out against her and served upon her in lier husband's absence". — The plaintiff were accordingly nonsuited. Anderson v. Peterson and Nolan. — Plaintiff sought to recover the sum of Lid 4s 6d, for goods supplied. The defendant handed in a deed of composition signed by two-tliirds of creditors in number and three-fourths in value. — The plaintiff was nonsuited. Bell v. Haddy. — Mr Harvey for the defendant. The plaintiff sought to reccover from the defendant the sum of Ll3 10s, being a debt contracted by the defendant's wife for thirteen weeks board and lodging, at LI 2s 6d, previous to her marriage with him. Mr Harvey applied for a nonsuit, on the ground that the wife's name in this case should have been coupled with her husband's. The latter knew nothing of the debt. The plaintiff was unable to state of his own knowledge that tho person who contracted tho debt had since married the' defendant. The plaintiff was nonsuited. Lawes v. Powell. — A claim for Ll 8s M, the value of a sheep. The defendant denied that he had purchased the sheep from tho plaintiff. He had not known him in the transaction. He was .prepared to pay the person he bought the from. Plaintiff nonsuited. The Court was then adjourned till eleven o'clock on the following day.