RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3885, 6 August 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Fi'.iday, August 6. (Before J. Bathgate, .'usq,, xv.M.) Gregg and Stevenson v. H. Cameron.—Judgment summons to recover L 24. An order was made that the amount, with costs, be paid within a week ; in default, twenty one clays’ imprisonment. —• Mr Lewis appeared for plaintiffs. Coxhead Bros. v. R. F. Bolton.—Claim of 12s Cd, for photographs supplied.—Judgment by default, with costs, T. Martin v. R. F. Bolton,—Claim L 5 3s 6d, for clothes supplied.—Judgment by default, with costa. Charles Nee v. Ah Woi.—Ohim of L 4 7a 6d. —Judgment by default, with costs. G. Perrimau v. Moult.—Claim of Ll2 on dis honored cheque with interest.—Mr M'Keay, for plaintiff, and Mr Aldrich for defendant.’ —Counsel for the defence submitted that no judgment of the Resident Magistrate’s Court carried interest.—Judgment reserved, W. and G, Turnbull and Co. v. Wm. Elder (chemist, Port Chalmers). This action, which was a claim of LB4 15s, damages for the defendant’s alleged wrongful proceedings in having induced persons not to bid at the sale of certain ship’s stores per the EaH of Zet land, was heard on Monday last, and his Worship now delivered hi§, judgment, holding that plaintiffs must be nonsuited. He had no doubt that but for the collusion of the bidders which took place, the plaintiffs would have received a higher price for their goods, and at first sight such collusion among bidders appeared to be unfair. On the olher hand no person was under an obligation to bid, and a vendor had means to protect himself against the evory-day practices in the sale-room to secure what was called a good bargain. The Lord Chancellor in an old case—Bramley v. Alt—refers to this, and sees no illegality in a combination among bidders; and in a n ore recent case—Galton v. Emus—the legality of an agreement between two bidders was fully recognised.