RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 365, 1 October 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wednesday 29th September Before J. Giles Esq,, R.M. LUNACY. A decent looking mau named Peterson, a miner, was brought u'p on an information laid by one Nelson, charging him with being of unsound mind, and dangerous to be at large. The iuformant did not appear, and the only evidence in the case was that of Dr Thorpe, who stated that there was nothing apparerently about the mau, to indicate any unsoundness of mind. The prisoner was accordingly discharged. CIVIL CASES. Gibson and Beattie v Johnson— From the opening statement of Mr Tyler, who conducted the plaintiff's case, it appeared that the main cause of the action, other items of account having been waived, was a sum of £QQ claimed by plaintiff for damages sustained through a breach of contract, involving the purchase and disposal of certain cattle.

Henry Gibson, examined said — I am a butcher residing in Westport, and previous to the 10th August have bought cattle in conjunction with the defendant, the arrangsment being that each too]k, half of the bullocks as they were killed On the date mentioned, defendant asked me if I was willing to go in 'with him to buy some cattle that had just arrived. I agreed to do so, and it was understood that they should be bought. The only person present in the defendants shop at the time of the arrangement being made, was a man in defendants employ named James Wormall. In accordance with that understanding I attended a sale of cattle on the 10th of August, and on that occasion 11 head of cattle were knocked down to me, and 4 head to the defendant. I paid £ll per head for 8 head, and £ll 2s. 6d. for the other three. I think the price paid by defendant, for the four knocked down to him was £2 ss. per head. Defendant Was there at the sale, but of course nothing was said between us at the sale in reference to our arrangement. A man who was there afterwards marked the cattle, defendant and I were standing together when he told the man to mark the cattle, and I saw him commence doing so, the brand being my own brand, G. B. with which all the cattle were marked. The next day I found some beef hanging up in my shop, which had been sent back by Johnson. I then went down to his shop and asked him the reason of his returning it, and told him that he had better take it, and not make a disturbance. He said if I could take £1 a head off the three heii'ers, he would stand to his bargain, but not otherwise. That was all that took _ place between us. Next morning I found that one of the skins of the two beasts killed had been taken away by defendant's man, and I have received, no account of it. As to the amount of damages sustained, nearly the whole of one of the first bullocks had to be given to the pigs. The remainder of the cattle thrown on our hands became so poor that they had to be killed off, and a good deal of the meat had to be given to the pigs, and the rest had to be sold under cost price, the beef being so bad that nobody in the town would buy it. I calculate the cattle actually realised an average of £9 per head. If the cattle had been sold off at once they should have realised £3O a-head. In consequence of having this poor beef on hand I lost all my ready-money customers, and eventually had to relinqnish business. Cross-examined by the defendant— At a former sale I bought cattle on my own account, and afterwards offered some to you, to take or not as you liked. By "the Court—Nothing was said about the number we should each buy, hut it was understood that what we bought was to be on joint account. James "Wormall, examined —-I am a butcher resid ng in Charleston, and was in defendant's employ in August last, and remember the sale of cattle about the 10th. The night before the sale came off Gibson was in defendant's shop, and I heard some arrangement that they should go mates in whatever cattfe were bought. Gibson's man and myself went up next day to the yard and killed two. The meat was afterwards brought to the shop, but Johnson would not have it. It was because we were out of beef and my knowing the arrangement between them that I went up and killed —Johnson did not tell me to do so. The following day I heard plaintiff and defendant talking about the beef. Johnson seemed to think some of the cattle had been bought too dear, and said that if Gibson would knock off a £1 per head on some he would take

them. I have come from Charleston, on a sub-pcena. I have lately received a telngram. from Johnson, telling me to keep out of the way. Cross-examined by the defendant— I presume it was you who sent me the telegram, for your name' was at the bottom of it. As your trade was at that time, you could not well do with more than two or four head at a time.

James Johnson, the defendant, being called as a witness, and sworn, admitted having despatched the telegram referred to, but stated in explanation, that his object in so doing was merely to oblige the witness, and save him the inconvenience of a journey to "Westport. William Beattie, a partner of Gribson's, was unaware of the particulars of the transaction under dispute, but gave it as his opinion that the loss on the cattle anounted to £5, per head.

James Johnson, the defendant, denied that any contract had ever existed between himself and the plaintiff. It would have been quite out of his ordinary business to have entered into such a large purchase as the one plaintiff sought totoake out, his trade being limited compared with that of Gribson's, and his custom being never to buy more than three or four head at a time. He had never had a bill delivered to him for this amount until summoned.

By the Court—l considered the four beasts I bought as entirely my own, and went to the sale only to buy for myself. I don't remember having offered to take the cattle from Gribson if he took a £1 off.

By Mr Tyler—Will swear I never said to plaintiff that we should have to buy all the cattle at that sale to keep out Wallace, and Dick and Seaton.

The evidence of Thos. Wood, John Seaton, and William Bobertson, witnesses called for the defence, was unimportant, further than shewing that the defendant was in the habit of buying only small lots of four and five head at one time.

Mr Tyler having touched upon all the salient points of the evidence, and urged the justness of his client's claim for damages ; his Worship said he was clearly of opinion, from the evidence adduced, that an agreement had been entered into, but he considered the amount claimed for damages was excessive. He should give a verdict for the plaintiff for £25, in addition to the £l 14s paid into Court and costs. The defendant asked for time, but Mr Tyler applied for immediate execution, the defendant having stated he was going to Auckland. Application for immediate execution granted.