RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1437, 23 January 1885, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

ASHBURTON— To-day.

(Before H. 0. S. Baddeley, Esq., R.M.

Drunkenness. —A first offender was fined 5s and costs, with the alternative of 12 hours’ imprisonment.—Charles McDonald, against whom there was a very unfavorable record, was fined 60s and costs with the alternative of 7 days’ imprisonment. CIVIL CASES. Ashburton Borough Council v James Tasker, claim L2 2s.—Mr Crisp for the plaintiff j. —Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs.

Same v H Knowles, claim L2 2s.—Mr Crisp for the plaintiffs,—Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs.

Orr and Co v W. Martin, claim LI,

Judgment by default for the amouni claimed and costs.

Orr and Co v James Skilling, claim Ll 7 6s 6d.—Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs. Friedlander Bros v James Gibson, claim L 26 15s 6d. Judgment by default the amount claimed and costs. Hazeltine v. Donaldson. Judgment summons, L 5 11s Bd. Adjourned for a week.

Veal and Rands v. Chapman, claim L2l.—Mr Branaonlor the plaintiffs ; Mr Purnell for the defendant. George Veal, a carpenter, said that a contractor named Scrimegeour had undertake to erect a church at Methven. Subsequently Scrimegeour was unable to complete the building, and witness undertook to do so on receiving what he regarded as a guarantee for payment from the defendant and other members of the Church Committee. Witness signed a contract to Scrimegeour, but the defendant promised that whoever finished the work would receive payment from the Church Committee. On completion of the work it w»s passed by the defendant. The defendant, had in the presence of witness, told Scrimegeour to give him (witness) an order on the Church Vestry for L2O. Witness received the order, but it was dishonored, and still remained unpaid.—By Mr Purnell ; Scrimegeour had called for tenders for the completion of the Church building. The defendant was not a party to the contract signed with Scrimegeour. Witness had not seen defendant in reference to the matter until two or three days after the contract was signed. Witness had proved on Scrituegeour’s estate, but the Official Assignee had returned the claim. This closed the plaintiff’s case, and Mr Parnell submitted that they should be nonsuited, as it was clear they had no claim against the defendant. The work was dona in pursuance of a contract between the, plaintiffs and Scrimegeour.— Mr Branson having replied, the plaintiffs were nonsuited with costs.

Harrison v. Dolman, claim L 5 5j 6d.— Mr Oriep tor the plaintiff; Mr Branson f>»r the defendant. A cross action, Dolman v. Harrison, claim Ll 6 2a. was taken at the same time, but on argument between Counsel, it was decided to withdraw the first case. The case of Dolman v. Harrison was then proceeded with. The plaintiff stated that he left a dray and some pigs at the auction room of the defendant, for sale. A reserve price was placed on the dray of Ll 3. It was sold for L 7 16s. Had never received the proceeds for them although application had been made to defendant's clerk for payment.—By Mr Crisp : Had bought the dray from the defendant previously for til, for which a promissory note had been given but which had not been paid, owing to instructions given to his (plaintiff's) Bank not to pay same until the defendant had lodged the proceeds of the y ale now sued for, to his account. Plaintiffs instructions were to sell the dray for ijla and the pigs for what they wculd bring. Never instructed the defendant otherwise Had oot yet paid the amount

of bill to defendant.—Hia Worship said that before going farther with the ca'B he would point out to Mr Branson, thi t judging from the plaintiff's own state* m*»nt the case was exactly on all fours with a case Bex well v. Christie, in wh’ch the plaintiff instructed the defendant (an auctioneer) to sell his gelding and not let it go under Ll 5. Defendant sold it for the highest sum bid,.viz, L6l6s 64. Lord Mansfield considered it a fraud on the public, owners baying,their own goods. They should go to the next real bidder. Mr Baddeley also quoted “Bateman on Auctions,” page 26—“ No action lies against an auctioneer for selling a chattel at the highest price bid for it contrary to the owner’s express directions not to let ; it go under a larger sum named.” An adjournment of the case would he granted until Friday next, in order that authorities may be looked up by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, Casa adjourned accordingly, without costs. C. Braddell v Maddern, claim L 8 9a. — Mr Crisp for plaintiff; Mr Branson for defendant.—The claim was made- by plaintiff, under power of attorney, (or the Hon Thomas Braddell. The plaintiff, after stating his case, called Mr Cambridge to prove that the defendant had promised in bis presence to pay aome money referred to in a letter, the rent due, which defendant had acknowledged having received from the plaintiff. The defence was that certain fencing had to be erected, according to an agreement, which was not carried out, and that the defendant never bad “use and possession” of the premises.—Hia Worship said that it was quite clear defendant bad acknowledged hia liability by offering to pay the plaintiff in the presence of a witness, and that he had taken possession of the land. Judgment would be giveu for amount claimed with coats.

Shepherd v Neate, claim L2O for damage alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff from medicine supplied in error by the defendant.—The evidence of Dr Boss went to show that there h*d been no negligence on the pa t of the defendant, and the plantiff had sustained no injury.—The plantiff was therefore nonsuited.