RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. This Day.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2593, 9 June 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. This Day.

(Before A O. Strode, Eaq., R.M.) Civil Casfs. Fraser, Harkiusa, and Co. v. Doull.— LSI 5s Od. Mr John Bathgate appeared ror t!ic plaintiff. This was a claim for machinery supplied and work done, die defendant pleaded not indebted, as the machinery was heavier than agreed for, and the cost of freight and carriage was unduly increased, and the work was delayed. The evidence of the plaintiff went to show that the defendant Doull was informed of the additional cost consequent upon certain alterations ordered by the defendant or made with his knowledge and approval, arid that the loss of time was caused by having had to make fresh models for casting in conSe quence of wrong instructions given by defendant’s brother. Judgment for plaintiffs, Lsl 5s fid and costs.

Gutnrio and Asher v. Spears.—L3o, foi wrongful conversion of a quantity of bricks. ;Mr Harris for the plaintiff* ; Mr M‘Keay for die defendant. For the defence, it was pleaded not guilty of wrongful conversion. L’he case, as stated by Mr Harris, was that on section 44, near the Water of Leith, there was a quantity of bricks, which Mr Welliam. bookmaker, mortgaged, together with tk uind to the plaintiff's; that those bricks wer afterwards sold, under a judgment of the Uourt, by one of the bailiffs to the defendant spears, and were removed by him, although notice was given to him by the mortgagees that they were their property. The plaiutin Guthrie said that Welliam owed the firm money, and that on the l.'lth February Jk entered.into an agreement, the rnemoradmii of which was produced, but objected to by Mr M'Keay on the ground of having opl) been stamped this morning. The tine was paid. Both plaintiffs were examined, who detailed the circumstances under which they claimed the bricks. On learning that they had been sold, and that Spears was the purchaser, they gave notice to Spears that the bricks were their own property, and that ;: he removed them .ho would bo prosecuted, they had put a fciice round the brides, notwithstanding that "Spears removed the., Mr M'Keay moved for a nonsuit ou tw. grounds.—First, that tho pla.ntiifs KUour nave given notice to tho bailiff before tk a de of tho bricks, on terms of tho lloaiden; Magistrate's Act; and secondly, because li. maintained that the mortgage was in reality a bill of sale, and came under the JBill of Sales Act. The nonsuit was refused. Mi Harris, at the close of the case, said if the defendant should place tho bricks again on the ground, and pay about L *2 damages, tho. plaint'-ffs would be sued. His vVorship said it was an instance of purchasing at a bailiff’s or sheriff’s sale without ascertaining the interest the seller has in the property'. Intending purchasers should ascertain that. He considered Speart must have known the whole transaction. He was of opinion that the bricks referred to were the plaintiffs’ property ou the 15th of April and ou the day of the sale by the bailiff. Judgment for the plaintiff, Lls, with costs.

Judgments were given for' the following claimants v. Campbell:—George W. Goddes, Luo 10s 9d; A. Fleury, Liu 17s 4d ; W. olill, L 7 ; J. Musgrave, L 5 IGs Bd.