RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2273, 19 August 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tins Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. .Baunatync v. Dale.—Ll I 4s sd, balance of account for goods sold and delivered. The claim was admitted. Verdict for the plaintiff by consent. Beaver v. Cook.—LlO 4s 3d Mr Bathgate for the plaintiff. Judgment for the plaintiff by default with costs. Herbert, Haynes, and Co. v. Smith.—Ll2 10s. The defendant is a carrier, and the claim was for damage to a sewing machine, through his alleged neglect. Mr Catamorc for the defence. ~Mr Herbert in his evidence said that the firm received an order from Mr J. R. Jones [of Waikouaiti for a sewing machine, which was carefully packed and forwarded by the defendant. 0;; arriving at Waikouaiti, Mr Jones found it was broken in a way that could not have been done, except by great violence. It was returned to the plaintiffs and put down at their shop door. The plaintiffs then took out a summons against the defendant who called, asked it [to be withdrawn, and offered Ll2 for the machine, saying if it could he repaired he thought he could sell it up there (meaning at Waikouaiti). The price was refused but the machine was sent by instructions of the defendant to Mr Peters, machinist. His Worship recommended the plaintiff’s to withdraw the case as the machine was not the property of Messrs Herbert, Haynes, and Co., but of Mr .'ones, who was the party who should have sued Smith! It fwas clearly the property of Mr Jones, having been sent strictly in accordance with his orders and h.e had his remedy against the defendant. The case was withdrawn. Brown and another v, Veijorten,—Lß Ha, for goods supplied. Mr Stewart for the plaintiff; Mr Barton for the defendant. It appeared that the defendant had ordered certain articles of clothing to bo made, and that they wei-e supplied, but attempted to be returned, on the plea of not having been made to fit. The plaintiff refused to receive them oil tlio ground that they had been altered in accordancu with the orders of the defendant, and that if they did not fit, it was his fault. Skilled witnesses were called on both aides. Isaac Martin, cutter to Hnnslow and Sampson, raid he would not have allowed clothes like those produced to have been sent from the establishment. The defendant was p--que tc ! I" put on Urn coat and ve.-t, which were produced in Court. D. Mackenzie, tailor, aajd that although slightly tight under the tifms, yepy trifling alteration would do. An extra flannel or dhqrfc v/Ofjld made the whole difference. '"The 'necessary alteration could bo made in two or three hours,' His Worship said, in answer to the question whether the clothes were made in accordance with the instructions of the defendant,'he was bound to say that they wore not ; but from what he n.b'l , B<; en and heard, he tljought there was nothing to show iil.lt the coatw*s> pepfcptlv useless, and in fact it appeared that the (iefeet migjft be cured. He did not consider in the present stage the plaintiff could recover. There had been the unfortunate illness of the defendant that had prevented his not following the clothes up, and in consequence those proceedings had boeu taken ; but he thought it a matter for adjournment to sec if the necessary alteration could be made. Mr Barton objected to adjournment. Mr Stewart was quite willing to that arrangement, hut in consequence of the objection, his Worship reserved judgment. Smith v. J. Nicol, Lo, for balance of account for ineais supplied. The plaintiff is a grocer and the defendant, being a Relation, boarded with the plaintiff on the agreement I that he should pay oue shilling per meaj. The account went as far back as December, 1§65, and January, 180(5. The defendant denied his liability. The account was ongiually for hi ?s, of which L 3 was paid.

Judgment for tile plaintiff, LI 2s with costs. M. Joel v, Boardnian. —A claim for neglecting to give up occupation of a house in King street, rented by him at 5s per week. Mr Joel said the agreement was verbal, and not the slightest intimation was given of defendant being a yearly tenant. No formal notice was given. The plaint called upon the defendant to answer why he refused to give up possession cf the premises, and his worship dismissed the case, as notice to quit in writing as required by the Act had not been given.