RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume I, Issue 31, 6 December 1879, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

(Before Mr. F. Guinness, R.M.) Friday, December 5. A case of alleged assault was withdrawn, an apology having been made by defendant. CIVIL CASES. Reid v. Gorsbie.—Claim L 95 IDs. 4d. Plaintiff was nonsuited with costs. Ford v. Bluett. Claim LSO. Mr. Branson for plaintiff, Mr. Ireland for defendant. William Ford, sworn, stated ho had a farm near Chertsey last year. Mr. Bluett sold a lot of horses and farming stock in April last, by instructions from me. I had at that time a ploughing contract from Mr. Wood, and ’he was instructed to sell my interest in this contract among other things, and it was sold for LSO to Mr. ChisnalL lam credited with LSO in the account sales for it. I never authorised Mr. Bluett to refund the LSO to anyone.. The account sales were forwarded to me about a month jifter the sale. The other moneys were handed over to Messrs. Jameson Bros, to pay for a debt due by mo to them.

Cross examined by Mr. Ireland—My contract with Mr. Wood was to plough 250 acres at Dromore. I instructed Mr. Bluett myself to sell this contract. The bill of sale to Jameson did not include this contract. I gave an order to Jameson Bros, for LSO on Mr. Wood before the sale. I don’t know why the LSO was not paid. I did not finish the contract myself. I stopped ploughing in December, and received no money from Mr. Wood. I did not get hia consent to allow anyone, else to do the work. Kc-examined by Mr. Branson—Had Chisnall been allowed to finish the contract he would have made a profit on the £SO he paid me. For the defence Mr. Ireland pointed out that there had been no money received for this contract, and called W. J. G. Bluett, who deposed that he had been employed by Jameson Bros, to sell Ford’s estate. Did not know Ford in the matter. Ford asked me about a month afterwards to render him an account, which I did. The original account sales were rendered in Jameson Bros.’ name.

The magistrate pointed out that the document put in by plaintiff was made out in Ford’s name, and he was compelled to accept that as legal evidence. Mr. Bluett continued—My firm took an acceptance from Chisnall, but subsequently refunded the amount. The money was handed back because Wood considered the contract had been broken. Cross-examined by Mr. Branson— Jameson Bros, wrote to us, asking us to sell Ford’s goods. Ford also wrote to me to the same effect. Both parties were present at the sale. Mr George Jameson told me to sell the contract. I only sent the account sales to Ford as a favor. Can’ t say whether the advertisement was in Jameson’s name.

James. Wood, sworn—Knew the plaintiff Ford. Let him a contract for ploughing. His Worship pointed out that lie could not see how this evidence could affect the case.

George Jameson, merchant, sworn— Held a' bill of sale over Ford’s property. Our firm and Ford both instructed Messrs. Bluett and Co. to sell the goods. The proceeds were to be handed to us., .The sale of the contract was an afterthought at the sale, i held an order from Ford to draw the money from Mr. Wood, who was to pay when the contract was completed. Don’t think our name appeared in the advertisement of the sale. The contract was not included in our bill of sale. Ford is not now in our debt. Mr. Ireland re-capitulated the evidence, showing that Ford had handed everything to Jameson Bros., and when, after the sale, it was discovered that the contract, was worthless, the money had been paid back to the purchaserMr. Branson said that the admissions made by both Jameson and Bluett, that they understood, the instructions were given by Ford, proved it was 1* ord to whom the auctioneers wore indebted.

His Worship considered the case turned upon the question of who gave authority to sell, and lie-was of opinion that, the plaintiff was the individual who instructed the auctioneers, and gave judgment for the amount claimed with costs. Mr. Ireland gave notice of appeal, and. requested the Magistrate to state a .case. His Worship said he bated his judgment on the fact that instructions to sell the contract had been given by the plaintiff, and no authority had been given by him to pay the moneys away to any other party than himself. The Court then rose.