RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2739, 27 November 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A, C. Strode, Esq,, R.M.) Civil Cases, Porter v. Fiskin.—Ll (is 7d, a claim for meat supplied. For the defence, it was stated that the plaintiff agreed to take a ticket in a raffle for an organ, value LI, and to set off the meat against it. The case was adjourned for a wgeff for the production of books and the list of shareholders i» tfe.e raffle. Bunbury v. Ridley.—L2 11s 3d, for milk supplied. Air Edward Cook fur the defence. L2 Os 3d was paid into Court. The claim was for four and a-half pints, supplied daily, from May 1 to July 4. Peter M‘Donald, a boy thirteen years old, said he delivered the quantity claimed daily, but he could not say for how long. For the defence it was stated that the demand was extortionate, and that the amount paid into Court was the sum due, IT loVbe Al-cgrell, servant to the defendant, said tho quantify taken wag a quart in the morning and a pint in the evening, at 2d per pint. Judgmeut for the plaintiff for the amount paid into Court, plaintiff to pay costs. Grant v. Win ton.—l4s, for jetty dues on wood landed at Pelichct Bay jetty. Seven shillings and sixpence was paid into Court. The plaintiff, who is collector of jetty dues, said that great difficulty was experienced in collecting the dues, which were payable by the mast, rs of vessels according to tho regulations, and that notices to' that effect were posted at each jetty. In consequence of the fic.jiumt evasions of the dues, the Government were determined to enforce the regulations. For the defence, it was stated that jetty dues had not been collected from masters of vessels for four years, and that they were not paid by them now excepting on wood earted away immediately, Un that ground they were determined to resist the demand, The jetty-keeper said notice of

the intention to collect dues from masters or owners of vessels had been given, and notices had been posted to that effect. Judgment for the plaintiff for the amount, with costs.

Dunedin Water Works Company v, Crawford was adjourned for a fortnight. Kennedy v. Mackenzie.—Ll 7s. Mr Turtou for the defendant. The claim was for a pair of racing shoes, made to order, which were worn without the stockings. On presenting them the defendant refused to try them on without the stockings, and also refused them on the ground of being too short. Michael Fox, assistant te Kennedy, said the defendant tried one of the shoes on without the stocking, and said it was too short for him, and he would not take them. Witness considered the fit a good one, as it was necessary to lit tight in every way. A witness, a butcher, said that racing shoes should fit tightly every way. Even if the toe went close up to the leather, it would not be hurt during the time it was on the foot. The defendant said he was measured with his sock on, and refused the shoes because they were too short. Kennedy said it was of no moment, as he could dispose of them before ten o’clock that night, but afterwards threatened to summon him if he did not take and pay for the shoes. A. Creagh and George Birch confirmed the statement of the defendant. Judgment for the defendant.

Duncan v. Potter. —LI 13s, a claim for amount of road assessment in the NorthEast Valley. The claim was admitted, but defendant objected to pay, as for some years nothing had been done for maintaining the road. Judgment by consent for the plaintiff for the amount.

Same v. James M‘Fie, —LI 10s, for Pine Hill road district. The defendant objected t 0 pay—first, as being not legally indebted; second, that the amount was not yet due; and, thirdly, that the conditions on which the assessment was sanctioned had not been complied with. The necessary proofs were putin. Judgment for the plaintiff for the amount, wuh costs. Neil v. Petersen. —Ll3 7s sd. Mr Haggilt for the plaintiff; Mr Edward Cook for the defendant. This was a claim for the difference between the amount for which certain cheese apd bacon were sold to the defendant, and the sura realised, with auctioneer’s commission added, at a re-sale‘of the goods, because defendant had not complied with the conditions of sale through not removing the goods purchased within fortyeight hours, the time specified. The case was substantially the same as one reported a few days ago, in which 1). M. Spedding was plaintiff, and which was decided against him under a clause in the Statute of Frauds. D. M. Spedding was called, and said the cheese was put up for sale, and bought by the defendant at 2.[d per lb. He had the option of taking 10 cwt. or the lot. Ho agreed to take the whole. The auctioneer’s book was produced, in which the record of the sale was noted. [Mr Cook objected to it as evidence of contract, as it was not stamped. Mr Haggitt tendered one shilling for stamp duty to the clerk of the Court, the contract having been made within a month, and consequently not being subject to fine. The book was then admitted as evidence.] On the invoice being presented, whiijVwas tlccftned, as 'he was not in the trade. On his neglecting to remove the goods, they were duly advertised and resold. The evidence was substantially similar to that given in the case already referred to. The defendant was called, who said the auctioneer put up three tons of cheese. If Mr Spedding would have taken his bill for the amount he might have taken the cheese. No other auctioneer had refused his bill. He was prepared to give his bill for the amount, not to pay cash. Mr Cook asked for a nonsuit on the ground that the entry in the [auctioneer's book vyaf: not sufficient memorandum of con’ tract, tor it .did not specify tfie vendor’s name, nor tfie ! quaff tit jl'sojd, and ft made no reference to the conditions of sale wjijch formed part of the contract. Mr Haggitt having replied, His Worship said he considered the auctioneer’s memorandum was sufficient and complied with the law on the subject, and that there was a case to answer.

(Left sitting.)