RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 1961, 18 August 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Pay.

(Before A. Chetham-Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. EXTENDED JUKIS ICTION.

Wibou and Co. v. Cameron and Binney. —This was a claim amounting to L2G 2s Bd, for goods sold and delivered.—Mr Ward for the plaintiffs. The case was undefended. Verdict for the plaintiffs. Packham v. Bookless —A claim for L7ff for a horse and medical expenses.—Mr Wilson for the plaintiff, and Mr Macassey for the defendant. —This case, which was brought bef re the 1 ’ourt a few days back, re-ulted then in the plainitiff being nonsuited on a point of law. In order to shorten the present case, Mr Macassey agreed to accept the evidence given on the former occasion. —Mr Packham was put into the box, and proved the purchase of the horse. On the last occasion the plaintiff was nonsuited, on the ground that the receipt given for the money contained no warranty.—Mr Macassey moved a nonsuit on the same grounds as before—naim ly, that the receipt was more than a mere receipt, as it contained the terms of purchase, and the buyer’s and seller’s names. It, therefore, partook of the nature of an agreement, and as it c uitained no warranty the plaintiff must be nonsuited.—Mr Wilson cited the case- Allen and Pink, which he affirmed was nearly identical. It was reported in 7 law Journal, p. 200. The declaration stated that the plaintiff purchased of the defendant a horse for L 7 2s Gd, which he virtually warranted quiet in harness. On that representation he bought the horse, which proved restive, and would not go in harness. Although a receipt was given in which no mention was made of tho terms of the contract, the plaintiff on bringing the action recovered on the verbal warranty. Mr Wilson also cited another case in support of his view. Mr Macassey replied. His Worship said since the last case was heard, he had made it his business to look carefully into the various cases bearing on the subject, and was under the impression from the strong case of Allen v Park that the invoice could not be considered a contract for the purpose of a warranty. Allen v. Park though an old case, appeared to be sound law, and applying the principle laid down there to the present case, the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict. Hut as he had not complied with the usual practice in such cases, he was only entitled to the value of the horse. Judgment for the plaintiff, L6O and costs. Notice of appeal was given, and bond taken for defending the action in the Supreme Court.

Gregg v. Mewatt. —A claim for amount of account with interest. The amount of account was allowed less L 3 18s lid for interest. Verdict for the plaintiff, Ll9 Is Id.

Thomson v. Nunn.-A claim for L2/ la Od. Mr Stewart for the plaintiff; Mr Haggrtj; for the defendant. The action was brought to recover the amount of a dishonored i endorsed by the defendant for L2b, witn interest to the value of LI Is Od. On the bill being refused payment, the plaintiff gave notice to the defendant, who asked that proceedings might be taken against Hogg, the drawer, to recover the amount ; the defendant promising to pay any difference. Mr Haggitt put several cpiestions as to the time when notice of dishonor was given to the def ndant. He trot judgment against Hogg, but having put it down in black and white, he did not remember the ray. With regard to the dishonored bill, he recollected it fell due on a Saturday, rud he gave notice to the iidorser on the following Monday. Mr Haggitt moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that the signatures to the bill had not been proved. It was necessary to prove that the signatures were genuine. In the second place, sufficient notice of dishonor had not been given. Mr Thomson’s evidence was unre iable. And thirdly, Mr Thomson’s name was not on the bill as the last endorser. Mr Stuart replied that it was not necessary as against an endorser to prove the signature of either drawer or acceptor. Mr Thomson was both drawer and endorser. Sufficient notice of dishonor had been given. Although there had been a thousand endorsers subsequent to the present holder of the bill, except in case of special endorsement, it would not prevent the plaintiff’s right to sue. The p aiutiff’s case was proved, and he was clearly entitled to a verdict.—His Worship said there was a case for the defendant to answer. In that opinion he was confirmed by the promise to pay on the part of the defendant, in case Hogg did not pay the amount. —The defendant, on being put into the box, could not be positive as to the day when the bill was dishonored. He never got any direct notice from Thomson. What he said was all about summoning Hogg. He asked him not to summon Hogg. as he promised to pay part of the amount in a days, [Mr Haggitt produced a deed of ar? rangement, to show that all the defendant’s creditors had signed it excepting Thomson.] —Mr Stewart objected.—His Worship said the evidence of the defendant was worthless, . for he recollected nothing clearly. Judgment for plaintiff, 127 Is, with coats —Mr Haggitt asked execution to be deferred, as all the money at the defendant’s command was in the hands of Mr Black and Messrs Uuthrie and Asher, for the benefit of the creditors ; and as Mr Guthrie was from home, a cheque could not be drawn.—Mr Stewart would consent on receiving Mr Black’s promissory note.—The promise required having been given by Mr Black, execution was stayed for a month.

Greig v. Hughes —A claim for L 79 Cs 9d, for damage to GO quarter-casks of whisky, shipped by the plaintiff to the firm in Auckland, on board the Angelina, of which vessel the defendant was master. Mr Stewart for the plaintiff; Mr Wilson for the defendant. !he ground of action was that, when the whisky was shipped at Dunedin it -was ten per cent, over prooof, but on its arrival at Auckland it became evident that some of the had been opened, that whisky had been taken out and salt water substituted for it. Mr Hill, collector of Customs, produced a document, signed by Mr M'Kellar, collector of customs at Auckland.—Mr Wilson objected to the document being put in evidence, as Mr Hill bad not seen M'Kellar write. Mr Stewart maintained for the evidence of Mr Hill that the document was official, apcl that he hud acted upon it, was sufficient* The evidence was admitted. —Mr Jackman, Port gauger, proved the strength of the whisky at the date of being placed in the bond warehouse. On exportation, he did not test spiri s with Sykes’s Hydrometer, butusually tested them by tasting. Had salt water been In the casks, he wnukl have discovered it on testing. On Mr Jackman being requested to compare the strength as exported and on the arrival of the whisky at Auckland, Mr Wilson objected, that the proof ought to have been on affidavit and not on a lauding waiter’s certificate.—Mr Stewart replied. Mr Wilson allowed the certificates to be put, reserving the right to object to them afterwards —The witness said about twelve gallons of spirits had been taken out of three casks, and water substituted instead. There were two gallons short in quantity in number S. On reguaging them on the 15th February there was no loss! —R. Watson, locker at the Universal Bond, said he received and delivered the whisky. To the best of his knowledge they had nob been tampered with. There were five or six storemen employed in the Bond warehouse. William Morris had charge of spirits on landing them until they were deposited in the store. His duty was to open the casks for guaging, sample them, and see them forwarded to the warehouse. —J. Boyd, manager of the Universal Bond, said the whisky was landed about February Ist. He knew that 10 quarter-casks left to the order of William Greig and Co. The bond mark was 468, and the numbers of the casks 7to 16. These were removed under tjie authority of the Customs. The goods could’ not be touched or tampered with except by the authority of the Customs or the merchants. Richard Bolton, carter, identified his signal re to the cart note. James Logie, carter, delivered the poods to a person who claimed to he mate of the Angelina. Both witnesses asserted that the goods had not been tampered with. Mr Greig, merchant, proved s -nding 10 quarter casks whisky on consignment to Auckland. The whiskey was worth about L 8 per cask in bond. It was worth about LlO or LlO 10s in Auckland In reply to Mr Wilson, he said the value of Pi gallons in Auckland was L 5 Ss. The whiskey was sold by auction for him He had heard of the sale from the auctioneer who sold it, It was sold fords a gallon by S, Jones. If two or three gallons of salt water were pub into a quarter cask of whitkey it would damage the whole cask. The case was adjourned for a fortnight. The court was left sitting.