RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2225, 24 June 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R. M.) Civil Cases, Briscoe and Co. v. M'Leod and Co.—A claim for 17s sd, for goods ordered, delivered, but returned through not having been paid for on delivery. Mr Stewart for the plaintiffs From the evidence it appeared that the defendants had ordered certain quantities of zinc and other articles which were to be paid for on delivery -, but the money no being paid they were taken back. It was sought to recover the amount on the ground of non-completion of contract. His Worship, in giving judgment, said the form in which the action was brought differed very materially from tho former case, in which it was sought to recover for goods sold and delivered. In the present instance it was for non-completion of contract. There could be no doubt that every merchant had a right to fix the terms on which payment should be made for the goods he sold, nor had anyone the right to find fault with or to ask his reasons for giving credit to one and refusing it to another. It would be extremely inconvenient if their were no means of compell inpayment for goods bought and refused. Supposing a draper cut a "cert un number of yards, and tho purchaser refusing to pay, he had it returned on his hands, it might become dead stock, or have to be sold at a reduced price. There would be no end to the disorder and loss consequent upon siich a system if there were no means of redress. According to the written notice sent by Messrs Briscoe, tho goods were lying at the risk of defendant, ready for delivery on payment being made. The defend-nt waa clearly liable. Judgment for tho plaintiffs, 17s 5d with costs. Lyons v. Cunningham.—L6 17s 61, a claim for wages, and a horso cover, stores, and medicine purchased on behalf of the defendant by the plaintiff, who was in his employ {as a carrier on the road. Mr D. Haggilt for the defence. A set.off was pleaded, bnt proper notice not having been served, it was not allowed. For the defence it was admitted that L2 19s 2d was due, but that the other items were not owing, and that they had been purchased without authority. As the Summons bad only been solved twenty-four hours, and the defendant professed to have evidence of payment of some of the item* charged, the cage was adjourned for a fortnight. Newman v. Symms.—L2 12s sd.—Judgment by default for plaintiff. Eyre y. Gray,—LlT Os, for week’s wages in lieu of notice. Judgment for defendant.