RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 2940, 22 July 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day, (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.)

Civil Cases.

Ziele v, Lange and Thoneman,— His Worship gave judgment in this case as follows : —I have considered the question at issue in this case, and have come to the conclusion that the evidence whether the brandy handed round in the auction room ab the time of sale was or was not a fair sample of the lot in bond, is very evenly balanced. My decision must therefore be given en other grounds. The evidence of the plaintiff and that of his clerk (Liggins) discloses the fact that the sample brandy from which the purchase was made, was drawn from a cask that was then, and had been for a considerable period, in plaintiff’s store, whereas the bulk (the actual lot of six casks sold) was in Baxter’s bond. It follows therefore, in my opinion, that the sample given in the auction room was not a sample of the lot actually offered for sale, nor of any portion of it, and the plaintiff having in my judgment neglected to provide a proper sample of'the actual commodity sold, he is precluded from recovering. Judgment for defendant. M'Phee v. Mackay.—On the application of the defendant, the plaintiff not appearing, the case was adjourned. Edmonds v. Gregg.—Ls Bs, for goods supplied and balance of account. Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount, with costs. Munrov. M'Ncil—Ls for bonus on kerbing and channelling at the corner of Princes and Jetty streets. From the evidence of the plaintiff, he based his claim on an alleged promise by defendant to give him L 5 on condition that the contract for kerbing and channelling round the footpaths in front of Messrs Briscoe and Co.’s warehouse, was completed in a month. The month expired on the 15th May, and the work was not finished till the of May. A witness was called to prove that the paving of the channel was stopped by order of defendant, but he proved the contrary. Mr H. S. Fish (Mayor) was ealled. Ho gave evidence as to the nature of the promise made by defendant. For the defendant Mr McNeil admitted promising live pounds should the work be finished in a month. The month expired on the 15th May, and he believed the lift stone was laid about a fortnight after the time expired. As to a guarantee, the on ! y questionputwas, “whatguaranteehavel that you will finish the work in the time ? ” and on plaintiff referring to his contract with the Corporation, witness replied that it was no me to him. Thomas Livingston who had a contract for asphalting the footpath, was delayed proceeding with his work until the 22nd May, thr mgh the kerbing uot being finished. Judgment for the defendant.