RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3837, 11 June 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Friday, June 1L (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) orvn. OASES. ; Pavletitoh v. Cochraft.—Claim, L 4 iOs, for rent of premises. Judgment for plaintiff for : the amount claimed, with costs, Martin v. Lucas.—Claim, Ll 19s, balance due' for a suit of clothes. Defendant admitted the debt, but said he wtis not in a position at present to pay. Judgment for plaintiff. Fleming and Stewart v. M'Clough.— This was a claim to recover Ll 13s, the balance due for alteration of premises. The plaintiffs Were not carpenters, Fleming being an engineer and Stewart a gasfitter, and the witnesses tor thi defence gave evidence as to its being a‘wretched' piece of workmanship. His Worship adjourned the case for a week to enable plaintiffs to bring forward evidence to contradict the statements made as to the bad workmanship. Wyber v. Flexman.— In this case, previously heard, his Worship delivered judgment as follows This is an unsatisfactory case, the plaintiff and defendant giving different versions of the original contract, and the witnesses on either side not being able in the conflict of .testimony to throw weight into the scales. I do not think anything which took place on the 27th February is binding on the defendant. He Was not present, and his servant’s had no authority to accept delivery. He has sworn that they were instructed to inform the plaintiff he did not want any more hides. The servants corroborate this; but from the references made by them to the Maclaggan street shop, which was not in existence in the latter half of February I am not inclined to place much weight, on tMs j C !I i^ e Pontiffs man, however, adnutted that the defendant’s clerk called to see plaintiff at the Princes street shop. The eviTu 11 ®! 0 r f J aiand his man only proves that the defendant did not take any skins after the ytii ot January thus, in one view, corroborating the statement of the defendant that he declined to take any more than one parcel. * The plaintiffs, shopman gave his evidence in an unsatisfactory manner. Throwing aside these witnesses the case stands oath against oath; and, as the onus of making out his case rests on the plaintiff, I am of opinion that in the circumstances he cannot succeed. The custom alleged, to exist as ton month s hides cannot set aside, a specific contract. In any view the plaintiff’s conduct has been careless. In the peculiar circumstances, no properfcy in the hides could vest till delivery took place, and it, was his duty to have looked after the hides, and not to have suffered them to gb fuiix without proper inquiry 1 Whom!* delivery to s b 6 or nut. If he found ' acceptance was refused it was his duty to have * lessened damage by an immediate sale, holding

defendant liabliifor aSy he were able tp ment for plaintiff Cozfltp. jl sitkrts.]' j N ;/ ■