RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2409, 21 December 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day, (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. • A. and J. Macfarlane v. Johnson—Ll IDs od, for goods supplied. Judgment by default for the amount claimed, with costs. Reid v. limes—Lfi, the amount of an 1.0. U. The debt was admitted. Judgment by consent for the plaintiff, with costs. Hawkins, trustee in Walqucst’s estate, v. Proudfoot, Oliver, and Ulph—Llo 11s Gd, for balance of account. Mr Turton for the plaintiff, Mr Haggitt for the defence. The sum claimed was for the difference between the price claimed for supplying a certain number of piles and the amount paid for them. The original agreement was with Messrs Proudfoot and Chaplin, and included a number of 4!) feet poles, which the plaintiff said it was impossible to supply. The contract was transfoired to Proudfoot, Oliver, and Ulp!i. Two lots of poles were delivered and paid for, and a third tendered, hut not being the diameter required they were refused, and ultimately taken by Messrs Proudfoot and Co. at IGd per foot instead of Lid. Walquust acknowledged that he had agreed to tho money sued for being retained by the defendants as security for the fulfilment of the agreement ; and Mr Turton said that the trustee, now having been made aware of the facts, declined to go on with the ease. The plaintiff was nonsuited. Gall v. Calder, Blacklock, and Co.—L2s, for damages for non-delivery of cattle, as per agreement. Mr Turton for the plaintiff; Mr D. Stewart for the defendant. Prom the evidence, it appeared that, acting upon instructions received by telegram from Mr Drivir, who was in Invercargill, the firm of Driver, Stewart, and Co., sold to the plaintiff 80 head of cattle, to be delivered at the Matau a on the 3rd November. They received instructions to sell from the defendants, who did not disclose that they were agents for one Kingswill until after the sale. Mr Gail left town with his stockman according to agreement ; and the day afterwards a letter was received in town, stating the cattle could not be delivered on the day appointed on account of Kingswill being away. The plaintiff had no knowledge of it until reaching Mataura, which he did on the 3rd Nov., at 8 o’clock, and left at 5 p.m., and had to return to Dunedin. He estimated his expenses at LIS, and the loss through havingto buy at an ad vance he estimated at LIO. For the defence, Mr Stewart asked a nonsuit on four grounds—--Ist. That the plaintiff had not waited the whole day at the place appointed for delivery, having accepted a contingent notice of inability to deliver as absolute. 2nd. That there was no evidence that the plaintiff was prepared to tender the value of the cattle. 3rd. That the plaintiff had not complied with the terms of the contract to give live days’ notice of the day of delivery. 4th. The only damage claimable Avas the difference bctAveen the contract price and tlie price given for goods bought in consequence of non-fulfilment of tho contract, and that travelling expenses Avere not recoverable. His Worship considered the first objection fatal to the case, as it was Gall’s duty to have

remained at Matanra the whole of the 3rd of November. Plaintiff non-suited. Costs allowed. Meikle v. Bacon and Meyer,— L 3 17s 6d, for balance of wages and cash paid. The plaintiff was driver of an express waggon, and the account was complicated by some charges for repairing an accident. Judgment for defen lants. White v. Boxall.—LG ss, the amount of an I 0 U. Defendant pleaded a set-off, as the account was to be repaid in goorls. The plaintiff admitted receiving goods to the amount of L 3 19s lOd. Receipts were put in the amount of L 4 Gs 7d. Judgment for the plaintiff, LI ISs 5d and costs.