DISTRICT COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3775, 31 March 1875, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

Wbbhbsday, March 31. (Before his Honor Judge Bathgate.)

His Honor, on taking his seat on the Bench, said : Before commencing the business of the District Court, I am desirous of making the following correction t

In the case of a Judgment summons, Baylee v. Steele and Keogh, on Wednesday last, counsel quoted from the rules published in the January number of the New Zealand Jurist.' From the fact of these rules being quoted in the Resident Magistrate's I assumed that the rules were those applicable to that Court, and I alluded to what at the time I considered to be a misprint. I now find that the roles published in the * Jurist* are not those applicable to the Resident Magistrate’s Court, but those applicable to the District Court, and that they have been conrectly re-printel from the ‘Gazette' of Jaiioary last. It is due to the learned editor of the Jurist that this correction of my remark be made.

Groves Brothers, coach builders, v. Robert Somerville, cab proprietor, of Wellington.— Claim Ll3O, for one landau carriage, made to order, and LI 16s, insurance on conveyance of Bal do to Wellington. Mr Stoat appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr P. R. Chapman for defendant The defence was that defendant never was indebted in the sum sought to be recovered, or any part thereof; that he never purchased, or contracted to purchase the goods in the particulars mentioned; the goods were not according to the terms of contract between plaintiffs ana defendant for the purchase of the goods in the particulars mentioned; that he never accepted the goods, and that the goods were never delivered to him. The facts, shortly stated,, are these : Defendant was inDunedin,and made inquires from-plaintiff about a carriage. A landau carriage, in course of construction, was shown to him, and he asked to be allowed to make the first offer for it on its completion. He then returned to Wellington, and on the carriage being finished correspondence took place between him and plaintiffs. Defendant having wired to have the carriage sent up by the 1 hoebe, and expressing his willingness to pay insurance, it was forwarded to him. On seeing it defendant wired “Decline accept draft, carnage not according to order. Greatly disappointed,’’ Mr Stout submitted that defendant, having seen the carriage while being constructed, he must have known its description j and that when defendant gave orders to have it sent by a certain shipand Agreed to pay insurance he became responsible for the goods, and the Vendors risk expired/ [The case had not concluded when we Went to press.]