RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2689, 29 September 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. Cowie v. Davidson. - L4O, balance of a partnership account as agreed. Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount with costs. Orbell and Miller v. Bethune.—L32 14s, balance of account. Mr Stewart for the plaintiff ; Mr Harris for the defence. From the evidence of the plaintiff it appeared that the defendant purchased a number of 1 ‘ culls ” at 3s (id each, and to supply his better customers some wethers at 8s and a number of ewes at 5s each. Through some mismanagement the sheep became mixed, and the plaintiffs agreed to charge seventy of them as “culls” at 4s. Defendant bought 215 at 3s 6d. They were delivered at three different times, July 20bh, August 3rd, and September Bth. The first two lots were paid for on delivery. There were, also eight pigs sold, seven at two pounds each, on one of which twelve shillings were allowed, and the eighth was to be three pounds. In consequence of defendant’s cart breaking down, plaintiff lent him a smaller one, and in consequence one pig was left behind which was allowed for. For the last delivery, ten pounds were paid on account, and the defendant though, repeatedly applied to, refused to pay the balance. For the defence it was asserted that the quantity of sheep purchased was not delivered, and that the defendant was entitled to the profit that he would have made on the number of sheep short delivered. The alleged number sold was 700 to 800, but only 350 were delivered. The defendant also said the pigs were agreed to be fifteen pounds for the lot, and that two pounds should be deducted from that amount. He never received any statement of account until about a month ago. His \A orship conside e l the weight of evidence in favor of the plaintiff. Judgment for the plaintiff, L 32 14s with coats.

Mr Harris said after that decision he should not go on with the case of Bethune v. Orbell and Miller—a claim for loss through non-delivery of the understood number of sheep. Mr Stewart claimed costs, which were objected to by Mr Harris. Mr Stewart said Mr Orbell had been put to considerable expence in defending the case. Professional costs were allowed. Houghton and Reid v. Tall.—Lloo. Mr Harris for thepla ntiffs ; Mr B. Cook for the defendant. This was an action for damages for breach of an agreement for working the trade between Dunedin and the Molyneux with the Tuapeka (of which the defendant was owner), the Storm Bird, and the Tairoa. The agreement was that the plaintiffs were to take up bills due on the Tuapeka by the defendant to J. Mills, L 321 Is Gd, and M‘Landress, Hepburn, and Co. L 379 17s Gd, to have as security a mortgage over the vessel, and that on certain specified terms the Tuapeka was to be worked on the Molyneux in conjunction with the Storm Bird and Tairoa. For some time the contract was carried out, but ultimately the defendant sold theTuapeka to J. Mills, who refused to carry out the terms of the agreement, not having undertaken to do so, and considerable loss had resulted, for which the plaintiffs claimed compensation. G. P. Reid said the agreement was that the outside boats were,to receive7-12thsof the carrying charges and the Tuapeka 5-12ths, The defendant had represented there would be a subsidy from the Provincial Government to the Tuapeka on entering into the agreement; but it proved to he a misrepresentation. Good profits had been made by the three vessels; but when the new owners took possession of the Tuapeka, they had suffered serious inconvenience and loss. One instance of this was that the Storm Bird went to Port Molyneux and had to return without cargo, the new owners giving the freight to their own steamers. The profit made during the continuance of the contract would have been three times the amount claimed. The statements made by the defendant to the witness of the local earnings of the Tuapeka were altogether false; and, on being dismissed from the command of the Tuapeka, he wished to be reinstated, offering, as she was insured for L 1,200, to go down with her and lose her. On making that proposition the defendant told him to clear out: he would have no more conversation with him. In cross-examina-tion the witness said that he signed the agreement in full expectation that the Government subsidy would be forthcoming, but that the Government gave it for one month apparently as a bonus, through the agreement having been entered into under the expectation of getting it, although the defendant had been informed it would no longer be paid. The -witness was cross-examined with the view of shewing that the plaintiffs themselves had broken the agreement by running their vessels in connection with another steamer on the Clutha. The only evidence was that of a letter written to the defendant informing him the steamers would take cargo only for the Tuapeka, but that they would receive cargo from the other steamer when the Tuapeka had not sufficient to fill them up. By basing the Tuapeka, he understood Captain Tall to mean knocking a hole in her bottom, and making the underwriters pay for her. On discovering that the Government would no longer subsidise the Tuapeka, he offered to give Capt. Tall LIOO to cancel the agreement, but he refused, and insisted on the agreement being carried out. On the application of Mr Harris, the case was adjourned to Monday morning.