RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 2929, 9 July 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Yesterday. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. Ziole v. Langa and Thoueman. —L4O. This was an action to recover the value of six easks of brandy purchased at auction. Mr Haggitt for the plaintiff; Mr ’tout for the defendants. The plaintiff, Ziele, said : There was a sale by auction of general mn-ehaudi-.c by Messrs M'Lcmdrcs*, Hepburn, and Co, on tho llth of June. He sent some brandy of inferior quality fer talc, which ho had bought of Mr Gregg at 4s fid a gallon. He instructed Mr Hepburn to let it go at 4s 4d, if that was offered. He took a sample a few minutes prior to the sale. Finding that the sample had not been sent down, Mr Higgins drew one from a cask, No, 12 of the parcel. It was one of eight bought of Gregg. A

sample of one cask in a parcel is considered a fair sample of the bulk. Liggins corked the sample, and he (witness) labelled it with the words, “ Six £-casks,” and took it to the auction room. It was given to Mi Hepburn. Messrs Finch, M'Farlaue, and Barron tasted it. Only one bid was made :it was that of Mr Thonemau, of 5s per gallon. The warrants were handed to Mr Hepburn. He saw the sample bottle at Mr Tlioneman’s. It then contained about a wine-glassful of tho brandy exhibited at auction as a sample. When there was only one sample, it was unusual to take it away from tho auction room. As Mr Thoneman disputed the sample being the same as the bulk, he got Messrs Howden, Finch, and Martin to accompany him to the bond in which the brandy was stored. Mr Hepburn accompanied them. Four out of the six quarter-casks were sampled. He found the four quarter-casks the same as sample in every respect. The sample lie took was the same as the bulk in bond. In reply to Mr Stout: He had sold about a quarter-cask, on which he got a profit. The other remained in his store. In conversation with Mr Thoneman, he told him he would rather make a red tic! ion than go to law, as he could not recover the whole of the expenses, James Liggins drew the sample of brandy of Bartle Frere’s in a pint bottle, which he handed to Mr Ziele, who t ok it to the saleroom. (The bottle]was identified). He had been in the wine and spirit trade eleven years, lu a lot of brandy one sample, it a fair sample, was usual. No other samples of Bartle Frere’s brandy were in stock. William Redding, storom-n to Mr Zicle, said ho was enquired of by Ziele and Liggins, who took the sample themselves. The spirits were precisely the same in quality as when received from bond. In answer to Mr Stout: He did not see plaintiff and .Liggins take the sample, but he saw them at the cask, and from the appearance of the ground afterwards, he concluded a sample had been taken. William Mepburn, on the llth June, sold at auction six quarter-casks of brandy for Mr Ziele. The sample was handed to him an hour or an hour and a-balf before the sale. Samples were handed round before it was sold. Mr Thoneman was the only bidder and purchaser at 5s a gallon. Either Mr Engel or Mr Thoneman took the sample away. It was against the rnles to take the whole sample away, although the buyer was entitled to part of it. He accompanied Messrs Martin, Moody, and Finch to Baxter’s bond, and sampled four casks out of six. He considered the brandy in Ziele’s store was similar to the bulk in Baxter’s bond. It was not usual to take more than one sample of a parcel, and of some brands it was not common to take a sample at all. In answer to Mr Stout, Bartle Frere’s brand was not coram-m in the market. Its value was 4s 6d or 5s a gallon. Samples should not be taken away without asking leave. 11. B, Martin sampled the casks of brandy Nos. 14, 15, 16, and 19, on 24th June, with Messrs Finch, liowden, and Ziele, and compared the sample with a cask in Ziele’s store bearing the same brand. The two samples corresponded. C. R. Howden gave similar evidence, James Finch confirmed the evidence of Mr Martin and Mr Howden. He was present at the sale of brandy at auction, and believed the casks sampled were precisely tho same as sold, as he recognised the same flavor, A. M'Farlaue remembered the sale, and tasted the sample at the auction room. He remarked it would not suit his trade.

W. Gregg, coffee met chant, sold some brandy t© Mr Ziele, but did not recognise it at the sale. A day or two afterwards he tested a sample in Mr Ziele’s store, but did not know whence it was taken. For the defence, Louis Thonemau, one of the defendants, was called. He bought six quarter.casks of brandy at M'Landress, Hepburn, and Co.’s sale on the 11th June, by sample which he la del at the room. He had the sample in his possession. He raceived the warrants, which he returned. When he received them he sent to the bond for a sample of the bulk. He compared the sample taken from the bulk with the sample brought, and it was not the same. The bulk was greatly inferior, and of peculiar taste. In consequence he wrote letters, and afterwards met Mr Ziele, who wished to settle the affair without going to law, and said he would make allowance. He (witness) lo’d him he would not take it at 2s a gallon? In reply to Mr llaggitt, he had not samples of more than one cask. A sample of one cask of a parcel should be a sufficient sample of the whole. Attention was drawn to the quality at the auction. He believed Mr Hepburn run bim, and he hid 4s Gd first, and afterwards ss. He did not think that auy other brandy was sold at that sale, and he could swear the sample he tasted was from the bottle he took as sample. Mr Wilson tasted the sample at auction and since, and pronounced it good brandy ; but only compared it with the bond sample on Saturday. The sample was in nobody’s charge, but was put in a corner where nobody meddled. It was put into a new bottle, as Ziele took the first bottle away. McDavid, s'oremau at Laxter’s bond, had orders from the locker about the lOth June to give Lange aud Thonemau a sample. Ho gave a sample to Lange and Thonsman’s clerk from G. six-twelve No. IP. W. Morrison, clerk to Lange aud Thone* man, having received warrants for the six casks of brandy, paid duty at the Custom House on the sample which he afterwards obtained at Baxter’s bond, and took up to the office.

Robert Wiisou was at the sale at which the brandy was sold sitting beside Mr Ziele. He saw Thoneman bid for the six quarter cidcs, and went down and to’d him to be cautious as there was some bad brandy of that brand in the market. He believed he tasted the sample, but only put it to his lips. Thoneman called him to taste the brandy, but be could not recognise it as that offered at auction. He compared the samples presented to him, but they were not alike ; one had a very peculiar flavor, and the other had not. There was a considerable difl'e.eucein their values. J. T. Mackerras was present at the sale of the brandy, -which he tasted. Mr Thoneman had shown him a sample, which he said was from the bulk. He did not think it the same sort of brandy as was sold in the auction room, but was considerably wora°. It was coarse and disagreeable ; qualities he did not detect in the sample at auction. In reply to Mr Haggilt, he had a distinct recollection of telling some one Mr Thoneman had got a good bargain. He thought ho could recollect the peculiarities of the brandy although it was twenty-five days afterwards. Mr Thoneman, on being recalled, said the sample he showed to Mr Mackerras was the same as shown to Mr Wilson. Judgment deferred.