RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 456, 23 January 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Euiday, Jan. 22. (Before J. Giles, Esq., E.M.) CIVIL CASES. Ereeth and Greig v. Haskins.—This was a claim for the value of 54< potato • bags. On the 26th of May, according to the statement of one of the plaintiffs, Mr Ereeth, the defendant bought 54 bags of potatoes, at auction, from Messrs Robertson and Co. The bags were to be returned, and the defendant bad promised to return them, but failed to do so, and latterly told the plaintiffs they had better summon him, which was done. In reply to defendant, Mr Ereeth said that complaint was made as to the quality of the potatoes, but he could not recollect whether the defendant said that he was so ashamed of their quality that he could not think of asking for the bags from those to whom they had been re-sold. Win. auctioneer, proved that the conditions at sale were that the bags should be returned, or charged at the rate of Is each. The defendant'* statement was that, for the six tons of potatoes which he purchased, he had paid 5s more than he would otherwise have done, having plaintiff's guarantee that they were good, but they were so much complained of that he was ashamed to ask for the bags, and three months elapsed before the plaintiffs : spoke about their return. In reply to Mr Ereeth, the defendant admit ted 1 that he had received £2 worth of coals as partial compensation, but he had also been promised that his loss would t be made up on " some other deal." The Magistrate considered that the de- ; fence was not a satisfactory answer to the action. If the potatoes were not , equal to sample, the defendant could have bis remedy, but the return of the bags was a separate and distinct understanding, and there was nothing to pre- '. vent the recovery of their value. Judgment for the plaintiff.-. Freeth and Greig v. Captain and 3 O.vners i.f the schooner " Enterprise." f — A claim of £25 for towing in the 3 schooner from the roadstead to the

_: Ti. _— iU. of +Uo plaintiff, Mr Ereeth, that, when the Wallabi was in port, the captain of the schooner, R. H. Thomas, asked that the Wallabi sliould low in his vessel. The Wallabi was at the time; receiving cargo from the Beautiful Star, but, as the defendant represented that his vessel was sinking, Capt. Daniels ultimately agreed to go out, and the vessel was in. £3O was charged for towage, but the defendant declined to pay. Subsequently he offered to land ten tons of coals on this side of the river, stating that he had no money, but this he also failed to do, and sailed for Charleston. He had since paid £5 to account. Geo. Limbrick, who was called to prove the transactions between the parties, stated that the usual towage would be £l2 10s., but in a case of emergency it was different, and the Wa'labi was detained three days in consequence of the time lost in towing in the schooner. The defendant's statement was that he had promised Capt. Daniels the ordinnry charge, and the steamer at once went out. In towing her in, the ropes broke near the bar, and, on the last occasion, she ran alongside, broke the mast, sprung the bowsprit, and injured some stanchions. After some interviews with the plaintiffs, he agreed to give £2O, if they would give him time, and he paid £5 to account. The charge at Greymouth was only £l2 10s, for towing in and out. The Magistrate said there was no doubt some amount was owing, but he had got very little evidence as to what would be a fair demand. It was what was called a case of emergency. There was evidence that the Wallabi was taken away from other work, and was detained, but there was also evidence that the detention was caused by her ropes breaking in towing. He must take into consideration the circumstance that it was a case of emergency, and that the steamer was not usually employed as a towing steamer, and that, under such circumstances, the plaintiffs might be entitled to a higher price. Still he thought they demanded too much. He gave judgment for £ls, which, with the £5 received' would be equal to £2O, and corresponded with the value of the coal which the plaintiffs had agreed to take. Trimble v. M'Ginlay.—Mr Tyler, on behalf of the plaintiff, applied for a re-hearing of a case which had been heard in the court a few days ago, and in which the defendant, Mr M'Ginlay, was sued for the valuo of a saddle. The ground of application was that fresh evidence had been discovered—two witnesses who had heard Mr M'Ginlay ask Mr Trimble for the saddta, and who saw the plaintiff's jockey giving the saddle to the defendant Mr Pitt objected to tho

granting of the application unless it was clearly shown that the plaintiff was ignorant of the evidence, and only discovered it after the first trial. The plaintiff was called, and stated that such was the case; and the Magistrate, although reluctant as a ; general principle to entertain such '[applications, granted the application. It was reasonable to suppose that the plaintiff might not be able to remember among the crowd of a racecourse, the witnesses to any circumstance which might have taken place. The re-hearing was appointed for Friday next. Mary Sullivan v. Harry Foy. —A claim of £2 2s for washing. Judgment for the amount claimed, with costs. Brown v. Heaphy. —Service of the summons was not proved, and, on the application of the plaintiff, the esse was adjourned.