RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2731, 17 November 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. Black and Thompson v. Donovan.—L2s, the amount of a dishonored promissory note. Judgment by default for plaintiff for the amount with costs. Blackadder v, Alex, Carr,—L23 13s sd, The debt was admittea, and judgment given for the plaintiff by consent. Cargill v. Russell. —A claim for L6O, for the value of a horse killed, as alleged by carelessness of the defendant or his servant. Mr Ha ris for the plaintiff; Mr Stout for the defence. There being eighteen witnesses in the case, it was by consent postponed to next Thursday, but as one witness was about to proceed to sea, his evidence was taken as follows. James Swede, a seaman belonging to the James Paxton, schooner, saw a collision between an express van a'-d a carriage in Princes street, one Saturday afternoon. It was on the rise of the hill going towards the Octagon. He was on the right-hand-aide of the street facing the Octagon, although walking in the opposite direction. His at lention was drawn to a horse which was galloping down the hill. He looked round and saw the horse run against the shaft of an express waggon, which was being trotted up the hill. 1 he horse, which was ridden, was going the quickest and when it struck the express it turned it ha f round. The saddle horse was on the right-hand-side of the road coming from the Octagon, It was struck on the loft side, ami was between the ■

kerbing and the express. The rider appeared in a hurvy lo get past the express. There was plenty of room for half-a-dozen horses on the side of the road next to him. Crossexamined by Mr Harris; The accident occurred somewhere about dinner time -at any rate before three o’clock. When the accident happened he thought he saw a dray between the express and the kerb stone, but he did not notice it so as to say in what direction the horse’s head was. He could not say where the horse was struck, but he saw blood running from it. The express was not in the centre of the road but rather nearer to the kerb stone on the side opposite to him. The saddle horse was going straight, the van might not have been. There were not many persons in the street at the time the accident happened, but several got together immediately afterwards. As soon as the man lumped off the horse he (witness) walked aw iy. Finch v. Beeves.— L6I, for damages for alleged fraudulent misrepresentation of the quality of 10 hhds. of Knglish ale purchased by the plaintiff of the defendant. Mr Haggift fer the plaintiff ; Mr Barton for the defence. The short facts of the case, as stated by Mr Hagjritt, were that on the 3rd and J4fch July, 10 hhds, of beer were adyervised for sale by auction by Mr Spedding, and they were advertised as “new brew, just landed from Invercargill.” The day of the sale the plaintiff called on Mr Spedding, and finding the ale was not sold, lie purchased it. It was a little thick, but that was accounted for on the ground of its being just landed. The plaintiff sold two hhds. to Mr G. Bennett and four hhds. to Mr Hancock. Both these parcels turned out to be sour. The beer was returned to Mr Spedding, who, after several attempts at a settlement, gave the name of the defendant as his principal. Mr Finch put himself in communication with him to obtain compensation for damages. Mr Reeves apparently treated the matter as a clever ‘ ‘ sell, ” merely saying, “ Somebody must be picked up, but he was sorry it was the plaintiff.” the beer was resold at LI 2s 6d a hhd., which was not the value of the casks, shewing that the beer was worth 2s 6d less than nothing. James Finch (the plaintiff) said about the 10th July he bought ten hhds. of ale of Mr Sp-'dding at L 7 a hhd. It had been offered for sale according to advertisement, but did not fetch the reserve price. He looked at the beer, and it had the appearance and taste of being new brewed. Its flavor was sweetish, and it was sparkling. He had had twenty years experience in the business, but the disguise was so thorough that no one could tell that the beer was not new brewed. He sold two hogsheads to Guy Bennett at L 9. He also tasted it and was deceived. At the latter end of the month he sold four hogsheads to Mr Hancock at L 8 10s. It was a light ale just suitable for summer drink. Early in August Mr Bennett complained of the beer, and, on examination by the plaintiff, he found it sour. He received from Mr I-onnett L 9 for the two hogsheads. Mr Hancock complained of the quality of the beer. AVitness with Mr Sped ling examined it and found it sour, and the eight hogsheads were sent for sale by Mr Spedding, and were sold at LI 2s 6d a hogshead He would not have purchased the beer had it not been represented as “new browed.” D. M. Spedding, auctioneer, said about the Ist of July, J. S. Reeves, the defendant told him 10 hogsheads of beer would be sent to his rooms for sale, and the advertisement was inserted in the Daily Times by his instructions. On the morning cf the sale Reeves went to him and said it would have been better not to have advertised the beer as “ new brewed.” It would be better not to guarantee it at the sale. His impression was it was not Mr Reeves’s own beer, and that he merely acted as agent. On Mr Finch’s application to purchase, he examined the beer with witness. The beer seemed to be sound, and he (witness) really thought Mr Finch had a good bargain. The beer after some weeks proved sour, and was only fit to make into vinegar. New brewed beer could not have become sour in the time. He could not say that it was doctored beer. That could only be proved by examination of the casks, which had not been made. C. White, clerk in the office of the Daily Times, proved the insertion of the advertisement referred to. Guy Bennett could not account for the beer turning sour in the short time, excepting through its having been tampered with or doctored. In cross-examination, he said he exchanged the beer with a brewer for a hogshead of Colonial ale. Mr Hancock gave similar evidence as to quality. Old sour beer could be so doctored as to become like new beer. Placing raisins in the cask would have that effect, but it must not be moved afterwards. Mr Finch was recalled, to state what took place between him and Mr Reeves. He said he called on him in reference to the beer, but he refused to entertain the question, as he could not recoup himself at that time. If Mr Spedding had advertised it as “ new brew,” it must have been a joke. He was very sorry he had been unfortunate enough to be picked up. It would not have mattered if it had been one of the Arcade men. Mr Barton maintained there was no case, as there was no fraudulent misrepresentation, and moreover there was no proof that the beer had been doctored. The defendant was as much surprised at the result of the affair as anyone. He also urged that notice of the bad quality of the beer should have been given earlier, and further, that having disposed of the goods, plaintiff was not in a position to sue on fraudulent misrepresentation. His Worship said the question for consideration was, whether or not the purchaser was led to believe ifc was newbrewed beer, when in fact it was not so. The advertisement appeared to have been inserted by the authority of Reeves, and it was clearly Spedding’s duty to state at the auction it was not new-brewed, which he did not do ; and although not present at the auction, in the transaction with Mr Finch he did not say it was not new-brewed. Reeves merely told Spedding that it would have been better not to have advertised it as new-brewed, but he did not authorise him to say it was not so. The evidence shewed there had been misrepresentation. Judgment for the plaintiff, L 52. (Left sitting.)