Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.-FRIDAY.

[Before Thomas Beckham, Esq., R.M.] The usual sitting for the recovery of small debts was held this morning : Undefended Cause. RICHABD RO (BBS AND SON V. RoGEB CONNOP. —Claim £t 7s 2d, for goods supplied. — The debt was proved in the ordinary way, and judgment passed for the plaintiff. Dkfendkd Cat/si-.s.

Frederick Lovkkock v. Cardinal Saintt. —This was a claim lor £6 16* Id, b dance of an account. —Mr. J. B. Russell for plaintiff, Mr. W. H. Kissli-ig for the defendant.—The plaintiff is a draper, and the defendant is the masti-r of the Prince of Wales, coastin„ among " The Islands." An arrangement was entered into between the parties "to take" certain goods upon sale or return. The gods were returned by the defendant, but in an unsale able condition. The plaintiff sent them to auction, where they brought „1 4s lid. The price of them as invoiced was £7 12s 10d. The plaintiff claimed tlie difference b tween these sums. The plaintiff, in his evidence, deposed that the goods were to be returned in the same condition as the defendant received them.—The defence was, that the goods were not properly secured agninst injury, the case not being lined with tin. —The plaintiff said he drew the atteniion of the defendant to the circumstance at the time, and told him that he ought to keep them in his cabin; The de fenda'nt notwithstanding the caution took the goo is.— Douglas Carter, a warehouseman, deposed that he was called in to inspect the goods alter Ihey had been returned. They were very mouldy, and couid not b* put into -* »-k, not oniy on account of the state they •W»r in, but of the injury they wou'd cause to üb.cr, gooda. Witness was formerly in the employment'of Arthur and Sons, of Glasgow, and lately of Sargood ai.d o).—William Kdey save similar evidence. Witness is clerk to Arthur and Son, auctioneers. When received tlie goods were ".stained, moul.ly, and worthless."—Walter Latchmore, clerk to plaintiff, remembered the. sale of the goods to the defendant. They were then in good condition.—■rT.he defendant was examined, and said that the goods were "given" to him to sell at a certain price, and all that he could get above that price he was to have for himself. He did not buy the goods for himself. The case should have been tin-lined. It was not lined. Witness, if he had known that fact, would not have, been responsible. Unless cases' were tirineo, goods are liable to be damaged if the ship "steams" at all. The case in question whs never in the water. Tlie damage was caused by the steam of the vessel. Witness also received a second case which was lined, and the gods were not in the least injured- A The g^ods were never unpaoked from the time witness left the Auckland harb >r until he returned. Capt. Hugh Faulkner Anderson, marine surveyor, deposed that he inspected goods ; they were mouldy. The cause of the damage was the steam in the vessel, which was loaded w.th " green, cane, a commodity* that sweats very much'" —Mr. Henry Cucsey, music seller, described the manner in which goods,'should be packed.—ln cross-examina tion, in reply to a question whether he Was a linen draper, the witness said "No, but he lived next door to one." Witness had entrusted goods to defendant, and they were* returned to him uninjured,—at least, nothing to speak of.—Counsel on either side having addressed the Court, his Worship thought the arrangement was a joint' speculation. —The plaintiff's counsel said if that -ere the opinion of tho Court, he would eiect to be nonsuited. .-, ' . • , .-

; James Mabtin v. George Colo an.— This was a claim for balance of an account. The plaintiff .did certain glazing for the defendant, which, as. he alleged, came to £1 12s.—The defence was, that the amount had been paid all but 4s. 6d., which defendant paid into Court. —The plaintiff admitted some of the payments had been made, but that, 7s. were due to him.—Judgment for plaintiff, and 15s. costs. Adjotjbned:—Martin v. Coulson. Claim, £i Bs. ~.., „ ." :v„ ,

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AS18711103.2.13

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Auckland Star, Volume II, Issue 567, 3 November 1871, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
686

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.-FRIDAY. Auckland Star, Volume II, Issue 567, 3 November 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.-FRIDAY. Auckland Star, Volume II, Issue 567, 3 November 1871, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert