RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3491, 1 May 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Friday, May 31. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) Drttnrenness. —William Ramsay, a cripple, was dismissed with a caution ; James xJurke and James Thompson, and Hector M Kenny, were each fined 10s, with the option of 48 hours' imprisonment; • Charles Cmr, 20s or 14 days ; Catherine Anderson, who was only discharged from gaol on Monday after a si*ty days* sentence, 10s or three days. Theft.— George Sinclair, who pleaded guilty to a charge of stealing a quantity of nuts, the property of Messrs W. and J. Scoullar, shortly after midnight, was sentenced to thirty days’ imprisonment. Obscene Language.— Mary Jane Gibbs was charged, on the information of constable Moore, with making use of indecent language within the hearing of persons passing in Hammond’s right-of-way, off Stafford street. —Defendant said her husband had broken a broomstick ovre her back, and refused to let her in the house.—His Worship said the proper way for her would be to apply for a protection order.—Defendant ; Then I will apply for protection; my husband should have been here instead of me. (Laughter.)-His Worship said that had this been her first of- : fence he would have dismissed her with a caution, and recommended her to apply for a protection order, but with six previous convictions staring him in the face, he could not do so. Defendant would be fined 10s or in default 30 days. Another Charge...— Jane]; Glass ‘was charged with making use of indecent language

on the 13th April within the hearing of persons passing in Great King street, contrary to the Vagrant Act.—Defendant pleaded guilty to “ cursing,” but would not have anything to do with the “ vagrant ” portion of the charge.—She was fined‘2oß, or in default 10 days’imprisonment. /’ ' - ; civil Cases, i ! Webb v. Findlay.—ln this case,; heard last week, in which Mr Harris represented plaintiff, and Mr Stout defendant, his Worship proceeded to deliver judgment as follows : ' plaintiff’s claim is admitted L 94 3s, but the defendant pleads that he is entitled to credit for an amount due to him for timber used in the construction of the plaintiff’s house by one Dossett, in terms of an alleged express _ e . fcyre en plaintiff and defendant, The evidence on both sides is contradictory m reference to the counter claim or set-off. The plaintiff states that he had never heard of such a claim until after Dossett had absconded. There being no writing in this case, a contract can only be implied from the acts and conduct of the parties. The leading fact®, about which I have no doubt, are as follow:—The plaintiff had a house to build, for which he advertised for contractors. The defendant’s clerk balled on the plaintiff to try and secure that the timber should be provided by the defendant. The advertisement intimated that the contractor .was to provide all the materials required. At the time the clerk called, it was not known who was to be the contractor. One Dossett obtained the contract, and afterwards dealt - personally with the defendant for: the supply-of the timber, the defendant knowing that the contractor was bound to supply the material, and entering. Dossett in his books as his proper debtor. The defendant from his own account began to supply Dossett with .timber on 30tb January, and continued the sup* Ply till the 19th February. The transaction with the'plaintiff for the plaster and glass is stated as having been on the Ilth and 19th February, the first date being twelve days subsequent to the date of the* commencement of Doasett’s dealings with the defendant; . ! A bill for the plaintiff’s account was left by. him for acceptance by the defendant in the usual course of business, which bill th# defendant delayed and finally, after Dossett had left, refused to accept. . The plaintiff had duly paid Dossett the instalments certified by the architect as due to him, which included the timber used in the building. There is no proof that the timber charged for, beginning on 30th January, was used m the defendant’s house, and there is no privity between the plaintiff and defendant established in respect of the supply of .timber, or a ST agency on the part of Dossett for the plaintin proved. From the evidence led lam unable to imply that,' whatever may have.been in contemplation between the‘parties, there was any agreement definitely arranged and settled, under which the plaintiff became liable’ to the defendant for the price of the timber specified m. the set-off.; The main facts, .concerning winch there is no dispute. < all point the other yay* and canonly be explained by i believing there was no such agreement .The setoff, therefore, will be! disallowed, and judgment will be for the plaintiff for L 94 3s and costs. Sheddan, v. Williams. Judgment was given for plaintiff with costs, (Before J. Brown, Esq.; and J. Black. Esq., J.P.’s.) Booth y. Parker—This was on action brought against the defendant for; closing a road which ran through his leasehold land in the Water of Leith Valley.—The Bench considered, that the wrong .person had been summoned. Judgment for defendant, with posts.—Mr Howorth; And costs of witnesses 7—Mr Black: Yes,—Mr Harris In a case of this kind, where a question is raised on public grounds, and to,test public rights, it is not fair that complainant, in the event of losing the case, should be mulcted with costs.—Mr Howorth :If it had not merely beeu a personal matter, it might have been otherwise. Campbell is simply one of the community.—Mr Harris stated that it was said in evidence at the time that the road being closed was a source of great annoyance to more than one settler in the district.— The Bench said they must allow the costs, seeing the wrong party was brought into Court. .