RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3249, 19 July 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Friday, July 18(Before I. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.) CIVIL CASES. Brown, Ewing, and Co. v. Lewis.—L79 Os lOd, dishonored cheque. Judgment for plaintiff by default for amount claimed, together with costs. Grant v. Ferdinand Begg.—L6o. Adjourned case. A claim for the value of a house alleged to have been removed by defendant without authority. Mr Stout for the plaintiff, Mr Barton for the defence.—T. H. Lusk was called : Knew defendant, and stayed at his house. While he was living there the shell of a house was standing, in which a room was fitted up that he afterwards occupied. In reply to Mr Barton : The cost was included in the general expenses of the house, of which, including rent, he paid his share to defendant.—For the defence it was stated that a number of young men agreed together t» occupy a house jointly, belonging to the plaintiff. For sleeping purposes an additional building was put up by them aud paid for jointly. It was not a fixture, but removable, and was offered to Grant on the termination of the tenantship, who refused to give anything for it, and claimed it as his own, as a building erected on his property. Mr Barton maintained that if he claimed the building as landlord of the property, he was not entitled to recover, for it was not a fixture. If he claimed it on the ground that he had'paid a share of the cost, no action in trover would lie, because one shareholder could not sue another for the value of a common property.—Mr Begg, being called, said he, with two brothers and others, lived in the house and paid expenses jointly. The building was put up after he first lived there. He was manager while living in the house. J. 0. Fulton, Tait, J. White, and Johnson were living in the house. The room cost L 9 8s sd, and the cost of the two rooms was Ll6 17s 9d. The wall-plates were laid upon stones without a pile or nail to fasten them. A rope might have been put round it, and it might have been pulled away. Grant put up the building, and was paid for it, —ln reply to Mr Stout: The payments mentioned were for the conversion of a shed into bedrooms. He could not say- who builDthe sheds.—J. P. Thomson,, carpenter, was employed to remove the building. It was not fixed in any place, nor was there any trace of its .having been fixed. To re-erect such a building with new stuff would cost L 35, and as it stood on the ground it was worth L 25. It sold for Ll2 10s. M‘Gill confirmed Thom son’s™ evidence*—John White, one of the occupiers, paid his share of fitting up both rooms. —Edward Jonson, and J. E, Denistouo paid for converting the shed into a bedroom.—W. Tait confirmed the evidence of the former witnesses. Judgment reserved. iiis Worship gave judgment in the case Burt v. Rolf, as follows :

Claim, Lll Os 6d, damage to sixty bundles of sheet iron, conveyed by railway from Port Chalmers to Dunedin, by rain or fresh water. A large portion of the iron appears to have been damaged by sea water and some portion by fresh water, supposed to be rain water. According to the evidence of experts, the one is easily distinguishable from the other, and for the damage by sea water, of course, no claim is made. The balance of evidence goes to show that the iron was landed and conveyed to Dunedin on Saturday, June 21 ; that it was delivered from the Railway Station on the Monday and Tuesday, or on the Tuesday and Wednesday following; that although a large portion was wet or moist with sea water rust, it was free from fresh water when landed in the railway trucks at Port Chalmers, and that it was delivered from the station in Dunedin wet with fresh water ; that it rained heavily on Saturday night and Sunday morning; that the laden trucks were left in the open air between their arrival and the delivery of the iron at Dunedin. Whe ther they were cohered with tarpaulins or not cannot be satisfactorily gathered from the evidence,, but I have come to the conclusion that, if covered, they were insufficiently covered, and that the iron, or some of it, was further damaged by rain water whilst in the custody of the defendant ; and that as every common carrier of goods is bound to take due care of them in their passage, and to deliver them in the same condition as when they were received, or to make compensation to the owner for any loss or damage which happens whilst the goods are in his custody—with certain exceptions which do not occur in this case—judgment must be for the defendant. I have based the amount of damages on Mr Mills’s estimate, which I consider the most applicable to the case. Judgment for plaintiff, L 9 3s 9d with costs. Nettleton and anather v. Norman Wood and another. L 92 12s 6d.~Mr Stout for the plaintiff, Mr Haggitt for the defendant. From the evidence of the plaintiff, it appeared that a contract waa entered into for supplying a quantity of not less than 100,000 bricks, but when 38,000 were made Wood directed him to make no more. In crossexamination, Mr Blair said he could not pass the bricks until they were on the ground. He agreed to make them for 48s a thousand, as he offered to make them for Mr Smith and Mr Duxbury. He was to be paid in full for every 100,000 made. Wood told him to make no more than 38,000, and he would pay for them. Edward Bacon was present when the promise of payment was made. Duncan Macfarlane said Wood told Nettleton that, not having received any money, he could not pay for them; he was, however, to finish burning the 38,000 bricks.—For the defence, Norman Wood said he had a sub-contract with M r Duxbury for a quantity of bricks, for making which he agreed with Nettleton. He could not get money on the green brick, and he therefore could not pay Nettleton. He never gave instructions to make no more bricks. The agreement was to pay 80 per cent, on the work done, and W. J. Blair saw bricks made by Nettleton, of which he had not approved, as they were still in the kiln. A sample of bricks was presented to him by March banks, who told him the bricks were good, but could not approve of them until ih position. Half-a-dozen bricks were shown him, but he could not pass a kiln on that account. Judgment reserved.