RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 411, 24 November 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Monday, Nov. 23. (Before J. Giles, Esq., R. M.) CIVIL CASES. M'Leod v. Humphrey.—ln this case, which had been heard on Saturday, the Magistrate gave his decision. It was an action for damages by breach of contract. The plaintiff was Daniel M'Leod, a shipwright; the defendant was Mr Humphrey, of the firm of Bailie and Humphrey. Mr Pitt appeared for tho plaintiff, and Mr Tyler for the defendant. The contract was for the repairs of a schooner belonging to Kennedy Brothers, for whom Messrs Bailie and Humphrey were agents. The facts were, that during the time this contract was to be carried out, the plaintiff was imprisoned,andwas unable personally to carry out the contract, and the defendant took a new contract for the work, and discharged the workmen put on by the plaintiff. Such was a statement of the plaintiff's case. The case for the defendant rested on several points, some of law, and some of fact. In the first place, the the position was taken that he was not liable at all, the firm being merely the agents of the owners, and, inasmuch as the owners had been disclosed, they should be Bued. He (the Magistrate) would have been surprised if the law

had proved to be so, and he believed, from inquiries he had made, that it was not so. Although it is very true that agents may relieve themselves of their responsibility by disclosing their principals, it does not follow that the mere disclosure does so. It must always be determined by the general considerations of a contract, and, comparing this contract with others to which he had referred, the agents would be liable. The next ground of defence was that the conditions of performing the work were not fulfilled, that the plaintiff incapacitated himself from fulfilling it. and that the defendant was justified in taking a new contract. Tie had no doubt that the principle was sound, but he did not think that the defendant was justified in considering it at an end, merely by presuming that the conditions would not be performed. In this case, although the facts were that little work had beeu done, there was still some time remaining, and, for anything the defen lant knew to the contrary, the plaintiff might have put twenty men on the work. There was another ground of defence, that the contract was assigned to Neaves, but of that there was very little evidence. The last ground of defence was that the defendant had abandoned the contract himself. The evidence was that he did so to the captain of the vessel, but the plaintiff denied it. It was simply oath against oath, but on the other hand there was the fact that the plaintiff had put on Neaves, and that men were at work on his account. He did not throw any doubt on the the evidence of the captain, but he did not think there was explicit evidence of the way in which the contract had been abandoned. He held, in fact, that the contract still held good, and that the plaintiff's case had been proved. The amount of damages claimed was =£2l, but there was no evidence as to the damages sustained, and he thought there was a probability that the plaintiff would not have carried out the contract in time. He would give judgment for £5 and costs.

Martin v. Edwards and Co. —The plaintiff, asActing-Captain of the Westport Volunteers, sued the defendants, owners of the steamer Kennedy, for £36, the value of uniforms damaged on board the Kennedy. An adjournment for a fortnight was agreed to.

Nixon v. Buckthorne. —A claim of £SO odd, arising out of a dispute about a purchase of cattle. The plaintiff only appeared, the defendant being in Wanganui. The Magistrate considered that the case was rather one of partnership, and should be settled by arbitration. He gave the plaintiff, however, the option of accepting a non-suit, or judgment for £2O; and the plaintiff took judgment, for that amount, execution to issue in a month.