RESIDENTMAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume II, Issue 579, 17 November 1871, Page 2

RESIDENTMAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Feiday.

[Before Thomas Beckham, Esq., R.M.]

The usual sitting of this Court, for the recovery of small debts, was held this morning, and tho following; business disponed of: —

Undefended Causes : Judgments for Plaintiffs.—Flower v . A. DornweJ.l, claim £4; A. Eustace v. J. Cramond, claim £1 12-.; ■a. and R. Cotter v. W. Shaw, £16 45.; Itichd. Moore v. J Johnson, £2 ss. ; 0. McDonald v. 0 Bain, £2 195.; T. Wilson v. J. Wilson, .3 lis. Gd.

Ai'JOUi.NED.—E. and R. Cotter v

Perkins

Defended Casks :F. H". Ckippex v. W. 11. Messenger. — Claim £7 12s.— Mr. Bennett for the plaintiff, Mr. liesketh for the defendant. —- This was a sharebroking transaction. '■ h^ case (oi' the plaintiff v>-as, that the defendant as. Ed plaintiff to purchase f>r him two shares in the Thames Gold Mi' ing Company. The plaintiff acted upon those instructions and bought the shares for the defendant, who refused to complete the transaction. The plaintiff thereupon sold the shares at a reduced price. The present action was brought to recover the difference between the alleged contract price and that at which the plaintiff was, in consequence of the breach of contract, obliged to sell. The loss sustained was £7 12s.—The defendant, was examined and said that ho did a-k the plaintiff whether he had two shares. '1 ho plaintiff said ho would try and obtain them. Later in the day the plaintiff said he could not get them, and wanted the money from defendant io pay for them. The custom was that such transactions were concluded or completed in one day, and he (defendant) thought no more of it. Received a letter from the pi iintitt"s solicitor demanding payment The plaintiff on the same evening, on a Thursday, said he could get one share and thought he could get the other, but witness said he had returned tho money to his client. The market had fallen £4 -an the Saturday.—Tho evidence of conversations between the parties was some what voluminous. —In cross-examination the plaintiff said he could not be expected to have given his transfers to the defendant without getting his cheque. The shares fell upon his hands so that on Saturday plaintiff could have

sold to anybody. Did not baud tho transfers to defendant, but plaintiff tol I defendant ho had them. Plaintiff sold the shares for tho best price ho could get for tin in.— l.dmnnd Kenriquos, a*: agent, was called as a witness for the plaintiff. Was present at a conversation between the plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff told defendant that he had got one share at £21, and would get him the other in a very short time. Mr. Messenger said, "All right."—Tbe defendant swore in the most posilivo manner that ho told the plaintiff on the same night (Thursday), at 9 o'clock, that it was " too late," and he (Messenger; had returned the money to his client.—Mrs. Messenger said she gave hei son the money, and he returned it to her when he could not get the shares. —The evidence was extremely conflicting. His Worship said it was impossible to pass a judgment upon the evidence. —The plaintiff accepted a nonsuit. Nonsuit recorded accordingly.

1-Cstack v. MorLAN.—Claim, £3 19s 41.— Mr. Hesketh appeared for the defendant, and said the plaintiff was bankrupt, and was not j known to the defendant, who was liable, if ■ liable at all, to tho estate. The plaintiff said j the Provisional Trustee bad assigned these debts to him, and he (plaintiff) had paid for ti.cn. lie .-ail Ijo hod ««t* Me papers with him to prove this fact, lie had also a defence upon tho merits—His Worship adjourned the case to nest Court dny. McLkod v. Nicol—Claim, £13 15s.—Mr. lfesketii appeared for the plaint ill'; Mr. Bavcridge fir the defendant.—The action was t brought to recover the price of two spars of j timber sold to the defendant. —The defence : was that the "sticks" were defective, one of j the.ii being |«ni\^ rotten. The defendant p>iid • into Court £3 ltM, as the value of the timber I of which any use could bo made Aso had paid £1 on account. The plaintiff proved the sale of the sticks at 2s 6I a loot.--;A witness named Charles I'ailey, a ship carpehte--, s.ii lie knew one of these Micks, which was rather sappy. He would not use the stick if lie could have yot a better one, in consequence of the nasty " black-blue" s ip —The defendant admitted having ordered the spars in April last. ; He stipulated that the spars should be '' good j spars : heart of kaun," and to be delivered within ten days. The price, half-a-cr >wn. was | a high price. When lie got them they ware j poor things, indeed quite a disgrace. They . were not delivered in time, and the vessel for j which they were intended was wailing. He was obliged to put one spar in, as the vessel j must go to sea at once. Was told by the captain j that it was afterwards broken. The break'igo could not have been in consequence of weight of gear, for it was above the rigging. Captain Cellars refused to pay. Defendant had written off Captain Sellar'a debt in consequence of tbe trouble occasioned by this spar. That debt would have been more than £5. It would not be so much as t'lo.— Mr. Alexander Duthie described a spar which was lying at the North Shore, and which was pointed out to him by Mr. Thomas Nicol. Witness wouldn't give £t for it. Tho most it was worth, when taken out of the bush, would be £2. — His Worship gave judgment for £3 10s., in addition to|tbe sum paid into Court, with costs.