RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 3647, 30 October 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Friday, October 30. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., E.M.) Drunkenness. —Eliza Mowbray, whore face was so disfigured that it was impossible to recognise her, for being drunk, was fined 40s, with the alternative of f.-urteen days’ imprisonment; Bridget M ‘Cabe, alias Burns, was Jet off with a caution, as she was the mother of a family. His Worship remarked that she had sued her husband for desertion a couple tf days ago, but he did not think he would ever punish a man for deserting a drunken wife. Slaughter House Eicense. — 'n application was made by Robert Wallace for a renewal of his license to slaughter cattle at Fast Taieri.—Applicant did not appear, and the report, submitted by the police, said that he had seceived notice to attend that day as hit application would be opposed. Wall. ce on being so informed had said that he knew that there was a very bad smell, and the place was hardly fit for a slaughters ard The yards were situated neart 'e Bailway Station, and the person in co. rge there had been obliged to bring the matter under the notice of the Railway Manager. Unless the yards were removed the smell would probably cause serious sickiess.—His Worship said that seeing applica t bad not appeared •he could not do otherwise than refuse the application, THE COMET CASE*, Anning v. Martin —His Worship delivered judgment in this case. After carefully reviewing the facts he said :—There cannot be, I think, difference of opinion as to the principles of the doctrine of ratification. There is no doubt that when a contract is made ou account of another by a person unauthorised as agent a subsequent approval or ratification of the contract draws back to the time when it was made, and the action of the unauthorised agent becomes bin ting on the principal. But it is essential that the ratification be made upoa a full knowledge of all the circumstances of the case and the contract be fairly and deliberately recognised and adopted. An agreeing or ratifying mind must be clearly proved, either expressly or by such facts and circumstances as satisfactorily warrant the implication that a ratification took place. A ratification ought not to be presumed. Further, a ratification can only be made when the principal at the time possesses the power to do the act ratified. Applying these principles to the present case lam of opinion that in the face of the conflict of testimony which exists, as well as the various facts which occurred in Dunedin, about which there is no dispute, there is not sufficient evidence of a satisfactory nature that the defendant had full infermation of all which took p ace at Christchurch betwen the plaintiff and MTlroy, the latter of whom had not been authorised to act as agent for the defendant, and that the defendant deliberately recognised and adopted the contract made by the plaintiff with M;Ilroy. Indeed, at the time the plaintiff said the defendant had not power to carry out MTlroy’s contract, the Comet not having its cargo discharged, or at a'l in the power of the defendant, and it is proved that the captain refused to allow transhipment from the Maori to the Comet of the plaintiff and others, as arranged by them with M‘ilroy. This is a hard case for the plaintiff and his fellow- I passenger* but the defendant, ia my opinion, *

is in no way to blame for win/, has happened The plaintiff can have his redress against M liroy, and I amwillili_' either at once to give judgment fur the <b f ndaut, in oid’;r that if advise I the plaintiff may ap peal, or to giant a nonsuit, winch would leave the ca*e open until the result of proceedings against M liroy.- Mr R irton agred to accept a nonsuit. [!n our report of the case against Edward Lyons for allowing singing in his icensed houve, the sense of the remarks ma ie by counsel was entirely miseou-trmd, owing to a line being tit out Towards the close of the case the following a; p i-.s;—“\Jr Manis said l.yous would !o e In's LMO. as the Corporation he unlike j to refund the fees —lhe Town tierk asked hi: Worship to slate a case for the higher Court.’ This should have read ‘-Mr Hams said Lyons .would lose hisj:.3o, as rhs Corporation would be unlikely to refund the fees, the down Clerk having regarded the matter as one of revenue. He (Mr Harris) asked his Worship to state a case for the higher Court ]