Resident Magistrate's Court.

Clutha Leader, Volume III, Issue 139, 9 March 1877, Page 5

Resident Magistrate's Court.

BALCLUTHA,

MAKCH 7, 1876.

(Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.) MTarlane v. M'Donald.— Claim of £10 for labour in lifting a boat that had sunk. .Mr Reid appeared for defendant. Plaintiff conducted his own caso.

The evidence tor the plaintiff was to tho effect that in February, 1875, a ship's long-boat of about five tons, and loaded with about 1200 feet of timber, both boat and timber being the property of defendant, was sunk in the river at Port Molyneux. John Butler, of .Kaitangata, was in charge of the boat, and he and auother man had tried for three or four weeks to lift the boat, but without success, Butler told plaintiff he could do no more with her. Plaintiff offered to make an attempt to raise the boat, and said if he were unsuccessful he would charge nothing. Butler agreed to this, and at plaintiff's request he went to Kaitangata to tell defendant and procure a boat, spars, &c. After one unsuccessful attempt and great labour, the plaintiff n anaged to lift the boat and the timber. The value of the boat was from £20 to £25, and the timber about £12. Defendant shortly afterwards sold the boat for £20, and refused to acknowledge plaintiff's claim.

The evidence for the defence was to the effect that Butler had had the boat on hire for about eighteen months previous at 10s a week, aud at the time of the accident he was carrying out a contract for boating timber. His agreement was to pay 3d per 100 feet for the xise of the boat, which he was bound to return to the defendant in good order. Butler never told defendant that plaintiff had- offered to raise the boat or had raised it, und he had never heard of it till about twelve months afterwards.

Mr Reid asked for a nonsuit, upon the ground that there was uo evidence of a contract having been entered into with defendant, and that as Butler was carrying out his own contract, he was bound to return tho boat in good ordor to defendant.

His Worship said that as he wished to consult some decisions upon tho point he would reserve judgment for a week.

Nelson v. Byland.— Claim of £1 9s, upon the following bill of particulars : — " Cattan Bayar, Februar 19, 1877. Mr Jonas Byland, Dr to J. Nelson — cas resf £1 95."

His Worship, after examining the document for sometime, asked what it was, it appearing to him to be a claim for roast beef.

Mr Henderson, who appeared for the defendant, thought it looked like rat's feed.

Mr Reid who was present, volunteered the suggestion of cats roasted. "

After some further but futile attempts to unravel the mystery, an appeal was made to the plaintiff, who is a foreigner, but who ultimately managed to explain the meaning of the writing to be " cash received."

The case was then proceeded with, and proved to be one of accounting between two fishermen at Catlins River. The terms of the partnership had first to be found out, aud here the evidence was very conflicting. Plaintiff swore it was a joint venture upon equal terms, while defendant swore plaintiff had guaranteed him 3s a dozen for the quantity of fish taken. His Worship adopted plaintiff's view of the affair. The case then involved many minute calculations as to the price of several takes of flounders, inuliet, soles, eels, etc., at 3s, 2s, and Is per do«en, according to size ; many questions in addition and substruction to find out the extent to which each partneihai benefited by the various transactions, and the balance of the total amount to which each was entitled. It was .ultimately found that plaintiff was right both in law and figures, and judgment was given for amount claimed with costs. A large number of cases had oithor been withdrawn or settled out of Court.