RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2623, 14 July 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. Inch v. Brown and another.—This case was adjourned to Wednesday next. Porter v. Pollock.—Ls 4s sd, for meat supplied. Hr Haggitt for the plaintiff; Mr Howorth for the defendant. The sura of LI 16s 5d was paid into Court, and L 3 4s lid claimed as a set-off. In evidence it appealed that if the cost of meat bought was passed through a butcher’s books, it was the custom to charge one penny per pound more than if paid for on delivery. Intimation to that effect was never given to the defendant. His Worship considered that under the circumstances of a barter account between the parties, the extra penny a pound was clearly not chargeable, as the defendant considered the meat supply a cash transaction;' Judg~ ment for plaintiff for the. amount paid into Court, L2 Os 5.1, which included 14s costs. Scolberg and Sous v.; M ‘Lareu and another.—£4, balance of account. Mr Stout for the plaintiffs; Mr Harris for the defendants. F. Ehrman, principal in the firm, proved forwarding the goods ordered. On behalf of one of the defendants, W. M‘Lareu, a deed of arrangement was put in. For the plaintiffs James M‘Lareu was called, who stated that he went out of the firm on the 20th July, 1869, and had afterwards no connection with the business. The goods were nob ordered before he left. He had seen Geelong tweeds in the shop. The dissolution of partnership was published in the Daily Times at the time, Wm. M‘Lareu, one of the defendants, sa d he ordered goods from the plaintiffs about a fortnight before the date of the invoice, in September, when he was trading on his own account." The tweeds were damaged, and he deducted L 4 as a fair compensation. Mr Stout admitted the deed of arrangement, but contended it was not a discharge of the accmnt, as the plaintiff was not named in the arrangement. Mr Harris said the omission of the name was no reason why the amount was claimable. Win. M'Laren was recalled, and said the goods were damaged in the weaving, and wre not worth the money paid for them. The plaintiff was recalled, who said the goods were manufactured at the commencement of the Geelong factory, and were not quite so perfect as now. There might have been more defects than in English tweeds, but they were equally cheap* Mr Stout held that the deed was not a discharge to W. M'Laren, as he was not in pu tuership with M’Lenaghan until after the goods were ordered, and therefore he was pcrsmally liabl . Mr Harris replied that the bill was accepted and paid by the subsequent firm, and the whole of the transactions proved they adopted and were held liable for the debt. W. M'La-en was recalled, who said he was trading by himself at the time the debt was contracted. His Worship did not consider the deed barred the liability of W. M'Laren, but as it was admitted that the goods were defective judgment was given for the plaintiff, LI 18s against W. M'Laren. J. M'Laren to be allowed costs as against the plaintiff. M'Grogan v. Curie. —L4. Mr Stout for the plaintiff ; Mr Harris for the defendant. This was a claim for services rendered as a monthly nurse. It appeers that no claim * had beeu made for the money until after a dispute about some fowls. For the defence, it was alleged that the services rendered werp voluntary, and merely as neighbors, and were compensated by a present of clothes made to defendant. Judgment for plaintiff, one pound, each party to pay costs. Fergusson and Mitchell v. Garrick. —L2O. Judgment by default for the plaintiff, with costs.