RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3174, 23 April 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tins Day, (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) CIVIL CASES. Allan v, Bray and Blair. —L32 10s, a claim for rent, and to recover possession of premises. Mr George Cook for the plaintiff. An order was ra ide to pay amount of arrears of rent and give up possession before the 23rd May. Brown v. Smith. —L 6 16s 61, for rent. Mr Stewart for plaintiff, and Mr Stout for defendant. L 6 Os 6d, together with 13s costs, was paid into Court, and defendant pleaded not indebted for the remainder. Plaintiff contended that the rent was 3s fid per week, and defendant, on the other hand, contended that it was 3< per week. The plaintiff said that be consented to reduce the rent to 3s, on condition of a fence sufficient to keep fowls off his ground being put up. This was only partially done, and consequently the rent was not reduced. His Worship was of opinion there was a positive condition to put up a good fence. Judgment for the plaintiff hj r the amount with costs. Sihbald v, Scanlan. —Claim Lls. Mr Scout for the plaintiff, Mr M’Kcay for the defence. This was a claim for loss sustained through non-delivery of fifty pieces of paper-hangings. —John Sibbald purchased a quantity of paper at 3s fid a-piece, at auction, of Mr Spedding, of which he had received delivery, with the exception of fifty pieces. He had seen Mr Scanlan on the subject, who was very dry about it, and told him to proceed. He valued it at 6s a piece In reply to Mr M‘Keay, his valuation was based on the fact that he could nob purchase similar paper under that price. He purchased it through Mr Speddiug’s brother as his agent. —D. Spedding said that he was instructed to sell certain paper, some of which he sold by auction, and other lots at the reserve price. Only six or seven buyers being present, he consulted them as to offering particular lots by reading the specification, and determined, in the event of there being no competition, he would sell them at the reserve price. He had suggested to Mr Scanlan that the lower priced papers should be offered Hist, lest the better qualities should be sacrificed. Mr Scanlan consented, saying “ho (Spedding) kngw best: he had better do so. ; ’ That was at the first day’s sale at Mr Scanlau’a warehouse. The sale in question was at his {Speddiug’s) rooms. For the defence is was contended that the auctioneer not having acted according to instructions from .Scanlan, the sale was void as against him.—George Scanlan said, on the Thursday bpfpi’o the sale he had a conversation with Spedding wjtfc. resnect to the lots to be offered first, and i£ was agreed he was to commence with lot 52. He did cotymep.ee with Jot 52. He was present during the whole sale Lot 1 was never sold, and he closed the book, instructing Spedding to withdraw the paper from sale. The wholesale price of the paper was 3s lOd per piece. In his estimation, the sample produced was not worth so much. In cross-examination, the witness said, in directing Spedding to withdraw the paper from auction, he told him to sell privately at the reserve price. Before being advised of the sale to iSibbald, he received an order from an agent for the lot of paper.—Thomas Johnson was present at the sale, and bid for some of the eonpqongot papers, as they were put up first. He cob Id buy tjie paper produced at 3s fid to 4s a piece,—Bobert Smith would consider 5s a fair retail price ; but an excessive price on fifty pieces.—Mr Stout cited cases to show that if things were sent to an auction room, even though instructions were given not to sell, they were held to have been sent there with that intention.—His Worship was inclined to think that an auctioneer was a general agent. Independent of that it appeared to be difficult, as there was a lot.of•dodging both in and out of the box, whether th.e pappus' .tyere gold privately or by auction, and Scaplap appeared to have given Spedding authority to sell at a reserved price. Spedding said they were sold by auction, and that Scanlan did not come in till nearly an hour after the sale; while Scanlan, on the other hand, affirmed he was there before the commencement of the sale. From the small attendance, Spedding seemed to have wanted a conversational sale. Judgment would be given for LI I ss, together with costs.

Godfrey v. Maitland and Heimett—L9, for work done and goods supplied. Judgment by default for the amouut claimed, together with costa.

.North-East Valley Road Board v. Job Wain, sen.—lss, for assessment on a house. Hugh M'Fadyen, clerk and collector to the Board, produced a notice of a special rate of Is in the L, which had appeared in the daily papers, and also one from the Gazette, calliug a meeting for the purpose of hearing all objections to the assessment, The defence waa

that no notice of appeal had been served. His Worship said it was necessary to serve a notice to every one. Judgment for the amount cl .aimed, together with costs Fishenden v. J. Payton, sen.—L2 8s 9d for meat supplied. Judgment by default for the amount claimed, together with costs.