RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3004, 4 October 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. G. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases, Walker v. Turner. —In this case the plaintiff applied to have L 3 10s paid into Court in the case of Turner v. Aughterson handed over to the bailiff on his behalf. An order was granted. Meek v, Paterson.—MOO (adjourned case). Mr Stout for the plaintiffs ; Mr Haggitt for the defendant. The case for the plaintiff was hoard a week ago. Mr Haggitt, in his opening address, pointed to discrepancies in the evidence ,pf the plaintiff, and contended that no contract was entered into; or if damages were awarded, they imist be merely nominal, as neither freights nor the price of flour had risen since negotiations were entered into, Gapt. Thomas Paterson, the defendant, wrote a letter, under date Ist July, to Messrs Meek, in consequence of previous arrangement, which was, that in the event of returning to Dupedin, he would give then? the offer of freight except under charter party, Be secured a reply by an unstamped letter, on the IQth August, to which he replied two days afterwards, and the stamped letter on the 20th August. About an hour prior to answering the first letter, Mr Keith Ramsay showed him a draft charter party, containing conditions to which he could not agree. He told Mr Ramsay so, and said he had written to Messrs Meek, stating the terras to which he would agree, They telegraphed in reply they would not accept his offer. He therefore toid Mr Ramsay he considered the bargain off Two days afterwards Mr Rams,iy°informed him he had instructions to close with him, and he would have a draft charter party on the following Monday, Previous to going to his office, he went to the .New Zealand Insurance Company to insure the vessel. The Company refused to take the risk, and he informed Mr Ramsay not to prepare the charter party, and be therefore threw the matter up, and wrote to Messrs Meek explaining his reasons. On posting his letter, the stamped letter was given to him. That was the 20th August. There was a difference between them of a day’s demurrage. He arranged to take railway plant to Moeraki, and in consequence Messrs Meek took proceedings against him He then offered to go to Oamaru for Messrs Meek, but they refused, saying they preferred su'iig for damages. In reply to Mr Stout, he agreed to the terms of the charter party, subject to the vessel being insured.— 11. B, Martin had been agent for several Auckland vessels trading to this Port. The rate of freight from Dunedin, and Oamaru to Auckland, had not varied for six months. The current rate had been 25* per ton for vessels from 70 to lj)0 tons. The Coronet received that rate. The terpi “nett,” in a charter party, implied that no Goinwissioiji was t» be paid by the owners of the vessel. He did not believe the price of flour had varied much in Auckland for four months for firstclass brands. He should not think the Auckland market was glutted at present. Hia Worship had no doubt of a contract having been entered into, and that some damages should be awarded, although it was evident from the letters that the plaintiffs had the question of damages running through their mind, but defendant should, before

making the offer, have ascertained whether the vessel could have bee* insured or not. Judgment for the plaintiff, L 35, with costa. Proudfoot v. Hassell.—Lll 11s lOd, for money paid for kerbing. Mr W. D. Stewart for the plaintiff ; Mr Barton, for the defendant. The plaintiff sought to recover from the lessee the cost of kerbing section 33, bloc 7, Dunedin, which had been leased for 12 years, from the Ist April, 1863. One of the conditions of the lease was all taxes, rates, charges, and other outgoings whatsoever, were to be paid by the tenant. Ihe facts of the kerbing being done, and the amount paid to the City Council by the plaintiff, was admitted. Mr Barton moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that payment for kerbing was not a tax within the mean- ' icg of the demised powers. 2. By the terms of section 16 of the Empowering Act, 1865, the landlord may, if he likes, lay down kerbing oppos t(f to his premises; that the Corporation would not prevent his doing so ; and section 12 provides that in default of the owner not kerbing, the Corporation have power to do so, where no kerbing already existed. The Corporation could not reach the tenant, and therefore there was no duty on the landlord so far as the tenant was concerned. (Left sitting.)