RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2538, 5 April 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A, C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. But chart v. Mills— T 5 Is. Mr Barton for the plaintiff, Mr Turtou for the defendant. The whole wns admitted, excepting 8s 4d, the amount of one day’s wages. Judgment for the defendant. Mills v. Butohait. —L sls 9d for goads entrusted to him for delivery which were not delivered as addressed. Mr Turtou for the plaintiff, Mr Barton for the clef.m*:'. the action was brought to recover the value of two casks of a’e delivered to Bntehart, as servant of Mills, by Staveley and Co., for conveyance to Mr Walter of tho Occidental Hotel, which were not de'ivered to him. Mr Barton admitted tho receipt of the goods ami stated that it was an error ineiTering tho charge for carriage to the Oriental instead of The Occidental hotel, and further that the goods were delivered as addressed, lo Mr Walter at the Occidental hotel. The defendant in evidence confirmsd tho statement of counsel. Mr Mfi'ubb'u received goods from Staveley and Co. on the date referred to, but not by the hands of the defendant. Ho received no ale at that time from him. Mr Stavely was not aware of any complaint having been made of non-delivery of the ale by Mr Walters. Tho invoice was not sent to Mr Walters, through not being posted. Personally he knew nothing of the matter. W. J. Walter could not exactly - ay whether the goods were received. On receiving a s atement of account some months afterwards, he told Stavely and Co. he would examine into the matter, and if satisfied they had been received, he would pay (he amount. He could not find any traces of delivery in his ou n books, and the block book of Stavely and Co. was not signed by Ids own employe, but by the carman. This was no evidence of de'ivery to him. His Worship had no moial doubt that the goods were delivered at the Occidental Hotel, though evidently unknown to Mr Walter, and therefore could not charge the defendant with the loss. Judgment for the defendant. G. R. Howard v. M Keay.—The plaintiff did not appear. The defendant presented his Worship with a copy of the summons and a receipt for the money claimed. The receipt was dated March 28, the summons, which was served on the 30th, hav ng hem taken out on the 29th of the unuth. Mr M’Keay applied for costs, which were granted. MTlroy v. Roberts. —LS, the amount of an IO IT for money lent Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount, with costs. Kingcombe v. Jervois.--1.13 2s 61, for board and lodging Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount, with costs.