RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 2970, 26 August 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day, (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. Gray and Drummond v. Easton- Lll. Mr Harris for the plaintiff, and Mr Stout for the defendants. This was a claim for balance of account for materials supplied and labor done. In his evidence the plaintiff said he entered into a contract in May for certain work with Easton and Dundon, and paid L 5 on account, for which a receipt was given in their joint names. Before the completion of the contract. § Easton purchased 6000 white pine laths for a job for MrSearle, 2000 of which were delivered, and the rest wero never applied for althou hj they were cut. He asked plaintiff to set them aside, as Seade would not allow them to be used. Dundon had nothing to do with them. Searle procured laths at a lower price. Prices had risen within two months, and Searle bought them at the price before the rise took place. In answer to Mr Stout, the plaintiff stated that he altered the price in his books from .‘lss to 40s, because, ou calculation, he found that should be the price to pay him. On a former occasion he sued for the laths at 40s, and now at 37a 6d a bundle. Easton never said a word about the price. W. H. Mitchell, contractor, was asked by Easton and Dundon to give an order in favor of plaintiff For the defence it was contended that Easton was not solely responsible, bub Easton and Dundon ; and that there was no valid contract to take 6000 laths. The defendant detailed the arrangement made with Gray. He said Gray offered to supply 5000 laths at 355, but on himself and partner agreeing to take them Gray told them he must have 40s. Ultimately a compromise was effected, and it was agreed that he (Easton) should have the quantity he immediately required at 37s Od. He took 2000 and did not need more, Philip Dundon gave evidence to the same effect. By the consent of the defendants a non-suit was accepted by the plaintiffs. Gray and Drummond v. Dundon.—L7 19s 7d. Mr Harris for the plaintiffs ; Mr Stout for the defendant. L 5 17s Id was admitted. The books of the plaintiff showed that the entry was in the name of Michael Dundon, and a receipt was put in evidence showing that they had been paid for. Judgment for the plaintiff, L 5 17s Id, Deans v. Deans.—L6 15s, for a set of cartharness. The debt' was admitted. Judgment by consent for the plaintiff.

Isaac and Marks v, Reeves, —LG. Mr Stout for the'plaintiffs. A set-off was pleaded of L 5 for board and lodging for one Davis. Judgment for the plaintiffs for the amount.

Thomson v. Marshall,—Ll. This was a claim for catting sixteen cords of firewood at 5s a cord. L 3 had been paid on account. The plaintiff entered into a roundabout statement as to the arrangement made ; but it was impossible to make out how he arrived at the amount of his claim. The defendant said the agreement was that plaintiff agreed to cut 20 cords of wood, but had only cut 111 cords and 3 foot, which was paid for, and

was prepared to pay the remainder when the work was completed. Witnesses were called who confirmed this statement. Judgment for the defendant. Marsh v. Clark. Mr Stout examined ! witnesses in this case for the defendant. Mr Catamore for the plaintiff. Charles Clark, carrier, said he gave plaintiff a receipt for a horse and harness for L 47 ss. He guaranteed him staunch. Marsh saw the horse , before he bought him and tested bin himself. He saw him on the I9th of May. He left Cromwell after the sale, aud on his arrival at Dunedin received a telegram, saying the horse was not according to guarantee, During the five years he had the horse ho worked well and generally in the shafts. In answer to Mr Catamore, he never tried him in single harness. William Muirhcad, carrier, knew defendant’s team of horses, which always worked as well as any horses. Ho knew the particular horse sold to Clark. He worked well in the waggon, and always lifted when he was asked. He mostly worked in the shafts. He considered the horse staunch.