RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3629, 9 October 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, October 9. - _ | (Before J. Bathgatei, R.M.) * * Drunkenness.— Abrah'dm Fitzgerald aijd Alexander M'Creagh weie charged withAhis 1 offence. Th'e fined. 40s, With the option of fourteen days’ imprisonment; th latter I'Os; ’ i ’.i L -a a/ (

CIVIL CASES. i “ Geo. Bell Vi'Shag 'Freehold' Q/ M Cor—This was an adjourned case,-plaintiff claiming L 93, the claim being for wages, at the rate of L 4 per week, as per agreement made between Mr Ball, manager of the comI>any, and plaindff. Subsequently the com ! pany stopped work, and plaintiff continued in charge, but his wages were reduced to t2 per week. Proca-.dinga were being taken to wind up the company.—At the dote of the plaintiff’s case, Mr Haworth came into Oonjrt and said he appeared for defendant., , He did hbt think the case would come bn so* pulictja;dly. He had served the Clerk of the Court with the copy of an order made by the Supreme Court to stay proceedings.—His Worship said the original should be produced —Mr Howorth replied that an officer of the Court had gone for it.—His Worship must give judgment, for .plaiutiffi-r-Mr Howorth emphatically protested. . He appeared on, behalf of the defendants, and asked if he.was not to ; be heard.—His Worship said Mr Howorth had no right to be Beard. The case was adjourned on the previous day,^at ,his' request. He hswi no Ipcus standi. -Mr 1 Howorth 1 would 'nbt see one creditor get preference Over another.—His Worship; You have given one creditor preference ovei another.—Mr Howorth replied that it was unavoidable.—His Worship, after looking at a document handed to him by Mr Howorth, said that it was an order to stay proceedings’ and he would have to arrest them. ’ ’ A- & Brown, Ewing, and Ce. -In this case, heard on Thursday week, his Worship now' gave judgment as follows / ; “ The plaintiff having a parcel of ribbons to sell, offered them to The defend ants. He represented that they were mostly whole pieces, fresh goods; and reserved stock. The defendants sent their ribbon-njan, Bishop, to look at the goods. _ This was on Friday. Bishop went to plaintiffs premises and: examined the goods, making notes of the number and lengths of the pieces. He then agreed with the plaintiff to purchase the lot St 5d a-yard. When sent, he had only,been instructed to look at the goods andreport '»n bis return to the defendants’ shop, he told the defendant bwiug that he had closed with the plaintiff, but did not state the price.. Ewing said ‘I did not, mean - you to do that,’ and informed hi* partner Brown wbat Bishop had done. Brown immediately left, mth the intention of seeing plaintiff bn the. subject. The goods had not th,en arrived. Brown met ; th« plaintiff, and told him that Bishop bad no authority to purchase, and that, he declined to ratify the purchase.’ The pUintiff said the value was right, and as the goods would be delivered, the defendant should see them Brown returned to his shop, and found the goo Is had been delivered there durihg'ha absence, his partner Ewing having allowed them to be eet down, pending the. return of Brown from seeing plaintiff ' As atifangted with the. plaintiff, the ribbons were examined by de--lendants that night, and-found to -be unsuit: - .not answering thedescriptiGti* given by plaintiff. Next day (Saturday) Ewing sent.for; plaintiff and toffi.him the ribbons had been looked over, in consequence of the arrangementr that they : would not adit, and that Bishop had no authority to huy|! Healao asked him when he would take them aw%. The plaintiff replied he had no place to send them te. Oh the Monday (14th) the plaintiff had not taken away the goods. The defendants sent 1 a written memorandum to plaintiff asking him to have .the ribbons removed that forenoon, and that in the meantime they were lying at his risk. The plaintiff not having removed the goods they were sent to the premises he had occupied. I am of opinion tha% in the circumstances, there is no good contract binding on the defendant* ; Bishop had no authority to conclude a bar-g-iin,' and when he reported the purchase it was immediately repudiated and intimation given to the plaintiff accordingly. Further, there was no acceptance and Actual receipt of the goods- oh the part of the defendants unrequited by law to make a good contract. Judgment Will be for the defendants, with costs.”—Mr Brown, one of the defendants, said the report in the ‘Daily Times’ was incorrect,, and not in accordance with the facts as explained by his Worship. TJie other papers had a right statement of the fapts, while the evidence in the ‘Times,’ being incorrect would lead thp public to tbb inferenbethat 1 tjiey (tl)'e defendants) 'fold the worst of the' nargaip t and would alto mislead them as to

who wag the aggrieved patty.—Hie Worship; lam not responsible for that. No doubt the 4 Times ’ will put you right by publishing the facts as read by me. Charles Ziele v, Alexandqfo M‘Gregor, farmer.— Claim JLSI) on a j Judgment was given for for the amount claimed, witoMilta^^f « Esther and Low v. same —.. lirfm3)f L26j 13s 2d being balance of ao>puntsF6r sold and delivered. - Judgment fd|S plaintiffs, with costs. '■ 'ihomas Wtlboarne v. John Bartman.— Claim LSO for damage dune by defendant cracking a stock-whip on Augu b 31, and causing plaintiff s horse to beC me unmanageable, whereby plaintiffs wife was thrown Mr dL Cook appeared for the plaintiff" and TiJr Stewart for the defendant.—Judgment was given for Lls and costs.