RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1535, 8 May 1885, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

4-SHBURTON— To-day. (Before H. 0. S, Baddeley, Escp, R.M.) Civil 0a«e8 Perham v Saundere, claim L 9 15s ; adjourned to June 5. Coulter v Betts, claim L4O. Mr Branson for the plaintiff, Mr Oaygill for the defendant. —Mr Oaygill applied for an adjournment to enable the defendant to obtain further particulars of the plaintiff's claim, and to bring a cross-action. Mr Branson consented to' the adjournment on payment of costs, and it was granted for a fortnight on these terms. Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs. Orr and Co v Richmond, claim L3o. Meech and Co v Campbell, claim L2 ss. —Judgment by default for the amount claimed and cosies Meech and Oorsbie, claim LI ss. —Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs. Betts v Horne, claim L 33 13s 4d,—Mr Wilding for the pla ntiff, Mr Purnell for the defendant.- Judgment in this case, which had been heard and argued befqre

the Court on April 17 and 24, was de-J livered as follows: —This is an action for 1 breach of warranty of a Deering reaper 1 and binder. It is quite clear from the I evidence who is the real owner of this I < machine, the subject of the present I action, but what I have to consider is, did I the defendant -o apeak of this machine I as to lead plaintiff to think that ha was I the real owner of it, and if so, did he I warrant it; and if warranted, did tho I plaintiff keep it an unreasonable time, I J have also to consider whether Raj acted I as agent of the defendant, and if so, I whether ho guaranteed the machine, and I in so doing compromised his principal 1 sufficiently to bind him. The defendant 1 gave hta evidence in a moat straightforward way, and seemed almost to allow I what would tell against himself, but still I I cannot say, after we ghing the evidence I very carefully, that I think the plaintiff I should have gathered from what took place that the Deering machine was defendant’s, and even if he had thought so I think that there is every reason to be- I lieve that no guarantee was given for this ! second hand machine by anyone, either Ray or Horne. The time, moreover, that the machine was kept was very long, considering the short season that these machines are saleable. The plaintiff apparently has misunderstood the defendant, and it is quite unreasonable to think that he (defendant) or Kay, for him, would , guarantee a machine that evidently was not his The plaintiff is non-suited."— Mr Wilding asked that no costs be alI 'owed against the defendant.—Mr Purnell 1 submitted that his client was entitled to coats, and after argument LI Is solicitor's ' fee, and LI cost of witnesses, were al- ' lowed. 1 Police Cases .

Drunkenness and Riotous Conduct. 1 —Robert Hunter was charged with having I been drunk and riotous at Methven yes- I terday.—Mr Wilding, who appeared for I the accused, admitted the offence, but I submitted that hia client bore a very good character and the alleged riotous behav- I iour appeared to have been of a trivial I nature. —Constable Black gave evidence in reference to a disturbance in which the I accused and another man had taken pact I at the Methven Hotel yesterday. On the I sug-geation of the Magistrate made at this I stage, a similar charge against the other I man, a first offender, was taken at the same time. —Constable Black, continuing, I said he would not have arrested the I second defendant on a charge of drunkenness ; Hunter was vary drunk. —H. Bailey said he had been at the Methven hotel yesterday. B e had seen the disturbance subject of the present information. The second defendant was most certainly not drunk ; Hunter was very much under ] the influence of drink. The latter was very noisy, and the second defendant had good-naturedly, but perhaps a little roughly, turned him out of the house. The two defendants were on intimate terras, and witness thought they regarded the little fracas between them in the light of a joke —One of the defendants described the occurrence, his evidence fully corroborating that of the previous witness. —Robert Hunter, the other defendant, admitted that ha had been “ a little bit drunk,” and “didn’t feel able to judge” of the condition of the other defendant. —W. Charters said he had seen the second defends ,t at the Methven Hotel yesterday. He certainly was not drunk. —The second defendant wav fined 23s and costs, with the alternative of 48 hours’ imprisonment. Hunter was fined 60s and coats, with the alternative of 7 days’ imprisonment