RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2784, 19 January 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Yesterday. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) In the case of Beadle v. King, which was adjourned for an hour to secure the evidence of a witness, the charge was dismissed, it having been proved that the prosecutor had provoked the alleged assault by most insult* ing language. This Day. Coldough Mining Company v. Lewis Grant. —L44 11s 3d being balance of a call upon four shares, which defendant owned in above company.—Judgment for plaintiff. Power v. Reid.—L2B 10s for carriage of sheepskins from Cardrona to Dunedin. Mr Stewart for plaintiff ; Mr Harris for defendant. Mr Stewart stated the case for the plaintiff which was that defendant required certain sheepskins to be taken from Cardrona to Dunedin. Plaintiff was a carrier, and Mr Lees, the manager for Mr Reid, wool merchant, of Hope street, had empowered plaintiff to bring down the sheep, skins to Dunedin at LlO per ton. Upon delivering the skins and asking for payment Mr Lees said he had nothing to do with paying for the carriage, as the s idler would have to pay. —John Power, carrier, said when in Dunedin he saw Mr Lees, and told him he was going out of town, and asked him if he should bring down the skins from Cardrona. Lees’ said he would telegraph up to Cardrona to see if anyone was engaged to bring the skins down, and on the way at the Dunstan he received a letter from Mr Lees, telling him ho might bring down the skills belonging to Naylor at Cardrona. He loaded’ and brought tli<? skins to Mr Reid’s store, who took delivery of them. He received from Mr Reid, on behalf of Naylor, a balance owing upon the skins, and then asked for payment of the carriage, which he refused to pay, stating he had nothing to do with that. In crossexamination, witness said he never knew there was any agreement between Naylor and Tewey, the owners of the skins, to bring them down to Dunedin.—Mr Harris, on behalf of defendant, said Mr Reid, of Hope street, was merely the agent of Tewey and Naylor, and had nothing to do with the skins but to dispose of them according to instructions. He considered Mr Power, the carrier, acted for Tewey and not for Mr Reid. —Mr Lees, in evidence, said Power came to Mr Reid’s store and asked witness about some skins which were at Cardrona, and he told him Mr Reid did not have any skins there. He had nothing to do with bringing the skins down, but advised Power to go to Naylor, He never entered into any arrangement with Power, neither did he mention anything about LlO being the price for carriage, His Worship said the case was

confined to the evidence of the parties themselves. Power stated there Avas a distinct understanding with Lees to pay for the carriage, and Lees said as strongly he had nothing to with the conveyance of the goods, being only the receiver. He must therefore give judgment for defendant. Grey v. Coventry. L4O 14s 4d. Mr Harris for the plaintiff ; Mr Stewart for the defendant. This was an action to recover money advanced to Pearce and Coventry for the completion of the Nuggett Lighthouse. From the statements of Mr Harris, which Avas confirmed by evidence, it appeared that Pearce and Coventry engaged by contract to build the Nugget Lighthouse, and the plaintiff was one of the trustees. As the contractors could not complete the contract, it Avas taken off their hands by the trustees and the bill for the amount of Avbich the action was brought was overdue. It Avas paid by the plaintiff at the request of the defendant, and on his behalf. The payment was made by giving another bill to Mr M'Kerras for the amount, which Avas paid at maturity. The defendant Coventry was to go down to the Nuggets and work it out. He advanced an addition of LIS in cash. For the defence, it was held that the bill was one that was included in the moneys to be paid under a deed of trust. The defendant on being examined said ' that the amount sued for formed part of the amount included in the debts agreed to be paid by the trustees. His Worship considered the bill was paid in the course of business as part of the debts due by the trustees. At this stage Mr Harris asked for a nonsuit, and the plaintiff was nonsuited accordingly.