RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT This Day.

Evening Star, Issue 3091, 15 January 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT This Day.

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

Sparrowv. Warnes.-His Worship gave judg. ment in this case, and said : I have carefully considered the evidence adduced in this case, and have come to the conclusion that although, on the whole, it is somewhat conflicting, the weight of evidence is decidedly in favour of the vi w taken by the plaintiffs. Some portion of the evidence having been taken at Napier and Wellington, in accordance with the provisions of the Resident Magistrate's Evidence Act, 1870, I have of oour.'e been afforded no opportunity of judging of the witnesses whilst giving their evidence, and the real value of their te timony. 'I his doubtless is a great disadvantage both to the Court and the parties to the chse As regards the evidence that was taken before me, J have tv< ry reason to be satisfied with the manner of the several witness, and taken in connection with the matters made out, in uiy opinion they form a sttcng ca«e for the o lain tiff. Judgment for plaintiff, L 55 3s with costs. Asher v, Simpson,-—This was an adjourned case. Mr Harris, for plaintiff, called defendant, who stated that the goods claim d by pi lintiff were not included in his schedule when he became bankrupt. Mr Wilson, for defendant, called Mr Caleb Moore, who acted as valuator for both Asher and Simpson. He recollected when he valued Simpson’s saddle on going into partnership, Asher thought it too high. He valued it at LlO. It was then perfectly new. He suggested then that each should keep his own saddle, which should be treated as private property ; that was agreed to. That was in I eceraher, IBGB. It was never taken into consideration in the partnership assets. In reply to Mr Harris, there was an inventory of all assets made, which was on a loose slip of paper put into a book, but it did not include Asher’s property, which was valued at LlOl). His Worship considered the evidence conclusive as to the saddle being private property. Judgment for the defendant with costs.

Simon v. Beveridge.—L3 Is lOd. Mr Harris for the plaintiff This was an action brought under the provisions of the Contractors Lien Acr. The case, as stated by Mr Harris was, that the plaintiff was a workman employed by 11. T. Dossett, who had taken a contract to build three cottages for the defendant, Dossett becoming insolvent, there was no fund for the payment of wages, and notice had been given to Mr Beveridge to retain in his hands sufficient money for payment to the workmen of the arrears of wages due to them.—John Simon, carpenter, was employed by Dossett on some cottages he was building for Mr Heveridge. He worked live days and five hours, at 11s per day. The time of the work done by him was prior to the assignment of the contract to another builder, The defendant pro*

duced the contract for the buildings. He received a notice not to pay money on account of the contract, and had retained funds accordingly.—His Worship gave ju gment for the plaintiff for the amount, Portob.dlo It oad Board v. Shepherd.— Claim, 1,3 14s 3d, for assessment. Mr ltdward Cook for the plaintiff ; Mr Stewart for the defendant —if or the plaintiff, George Johnson, Collector for the Portobello District It oad Board, said it was constituted under the Ordinance of 1871. The rate as J- n the po ind, levied by the Board October 29th. Mr I arnach was Chairman of the Board, but was not present at the meeting. There was no estimate before the Board of tne amount required. It M r as not considered necessary to have an estimate, as it m as a special rate. —Mr Stewart said an estimate was required by the Act.—His Worship said nothing could be more specific than the words of the Act. —Mr Cook was proceeding with his examinations, when his Worship considered it ucnecesssary to go further.—Case dismissed with costs.

A. G. Dunning v. Hepburn and others,— Claim, L 6. Mr Cook for the plaintiff; From the evidence of the plaintiff, it appeared that on the 11th December certain mining scrip, representing 80 shares in the Nil Desperandum Mining Company, were offered for sale by auction by Messrs M,Landless, Hepburn, and Co. He bought them at 6s a share. He paid a deposit of L 6. The scrip was to be down by return of post, by which he understood a period not exceeding a week, as the registered office was in Cromwell. He made application about eight days afterwards to Messrs M‘Landress and Co., and was told the scrip bad not arrived. He went twice afterwards and received the same answer. On or about the 23rd he called and saw Mr Hepburn, and he was told it was not down, and he then told him he would not take the shares, as the contract had not been complied with. Mr Hepburn told him to send a letter to that effect, which he did. About seven days was necessary to write to Cromwell and receive a reply. Plaintiff sold twenty shares at the room and received the money, and he also sold the remainining sixty at a profit about eight days afterwards, ot receiving the scrip he was unable to fulfil his contract, and returned the money to the purchaser. The shares were at present valueless. No call was mentioned at the sale, but one was made on the 27th December. He had applied to Mr Hepburn for a return of the deposit, but he refused, saying. “ He was not the principal in the transaction. If Mr n awkins would give an order for the return of the money, it should be refunded. In reply to Mr Davie, he saw the advertisement giving notice of the sale by order of the mortgagee. F. A. Ricchelt was present w hen the shares were sold, and asked who was the owners of the shares, but was answered ’‘never mind,” He then asked the number of shares, and was told that as many shares as were sold would be delivered, and the scrip would be down by return of post. —H. Goldsmith corroborated the previous evidence. He ha,d purchased of Mr Dunning, and sold his scrip at a profit, but not receiving the scrip, was obliged to return the money. Mr D. M. Spedding sold twenty shares, by order of Mr Goldsmith, at 7s a share on the l/th December, but the contract was broken on the 22ud. He bought 20 shares of Mr Dunning, bat not receiving the scrip, declined to take ihem. The value of tne shares fell, on account of a call of 12s fid on scrip, advertised in the Cromivell Argun. He considered non-delivery beyond eight or ten days excess of time for delivery F. H. Evans had sold shares at 20s and 15s each about a week after the sale took place. At the end of December he could not get 2s fid a share for them. -For the defence, John Davie, of the firm of M‘Landre=s, Hepburn, and Co., received instructions from Mr Dawkins, on the part of a person iu Queenstown, to advertise the sale of 140 shares in the Nil Desperandum Company, by order of tbe mortgagee 1 hey were sold accordingly on the 11th December. He was present at the sale ; the conditions of sale ivero verbal; the terms were one-fourth cash on the fail of the hammer, and balance on production of transfer. This gave rise to the question when the completion could take place, when Mr Hepburn stated he could not fix the date, but it w'ould be subject to return of post, or within a reasonable time. Instructions went on the 13th to obtain the necessary transfer. The document was returned by the post, which arrived on the evening of the 24th, the 25th and 26th being close holidays, information was not received until.the morning of the 27th, when notice was given to Mr Dunnay, in writing that the transaction could be completed. (Mr Cook objected to copy of the letter being given in evidence.) —Air Hawkins confirmed the evidence of Mr Davie, and said that he stated publicly in the auction room to Mr Hepburn, so that all'present would hear, that in course of post meant ten or twelve days. Tie auctioneer not satisfied said, “Within a reasonable time.” The earliest time they would have been received was Monday, the 23rd. They were sctually received on the evening of the 24th, and in consequence of the holidays notice was not given to Mr Dunning up til tfie 27th. Bis Worship'thought the plaintiff h&d been rash in the matter. Even taking his version it could not be said thirteen days was an unreasonable time. The purchase was made with a full knowledge of the risk. Mr Cook asked for a non-suit, and the plaintiff was non-suited accordingly. Macfarlane v. Donaldson.—Ll 9s fid for goods supplied. Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount with costs.