RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3923, 20 September 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, September 20. (Before L Bathgate, fchj.p, ii. d.)

Anderson and ’-noth rv. Favley. H. Worsh p<l liwred judgm ut herein—a clai of i.6 16s for two mn.ights, b -mg a poitmn f a contract entered int betw.-eu tin* plaintiffand defendants, and L 3 8s f r suudr articles applied. Und r the iiist cla : m his Wors ip tv.is o o inion that the p’al t tft> having a*;a-..-doned their co tract, could not reeover. Judgment was given fuv the amount claim d, L 3 8-, linger t ere oml ount, with costs. Judgment was given for plaintiffs with costs in te f owing cases Corporation oi Dunedin v. Hugh Devine, Ll 11s, ia*os; Anne Diamond v. Henry Pepper, L 4 Jos. boar:} and lodging; Mattheson Bins. v. B id-et M't'ol(i uapc-ka), Ll2 8s Bd, goods supplied; W. Asher and Do. v. William Had and another, *.-td Ids Id, ’inbcr supn.ied; Carver v. .-übivaii, LlB 4s Cd, balance of account cm a new express supplied. A, llellyer v. Wm. Hildreth.—This was a fraud summons for i .16. The case was adjourned till the 13 hj December to enable .he defendant to settle the claim by instalments.. A. Granger v. James Cheyue.—This was a judgment summons for L 36 13s lid, goods sup pueJ. Defendant ..'aid that he frequently received money from Home, and recently receiving L‘26, which he lost when drinking. The claim was for goods suppled to his family, he having promised to pay plaintiff when he received his remittance. He had, through losing the money, been unable to pay plaintiff. His Worship said defendant deserved to be sent to gaol for three months till the drink was taken out of him. He had contracted fraud of a verybad kind—having had his family supplied with goods on false representations. It would be a true charity to defendant’s wife and family ty send him to gaol for three mouths to try and euro him. That -.ould be the best asylum for him.—Mr Lewis applied for on adjournment, so that an arrangement with defendant's creditors might be made. A composition was contemplated. The case was adjourned till October IS.

Macedo v. Woods.—This was a claim for books supplied. His Worship delivered judgment as follows :

“ This case turns on the principle that a per, son contracting as agreed will he personally responsible where the name of the principal is not disclosed. In this case the defendant was acting for the committee of a private school. If lie desiied to escape liai-ili.y, h- mould have furnished ; he names of one or more 01 the persons composing the committee, mm especially he _ should have done so whoa applied to in writing by the plaintiff. in his answer he evades giving ad mfcrmauon. The phiintdf charged the books against the defend..u- when oi deml, and it has no ,- bee. t proved b v ihe def miaut that lie was authorised by any ''era,,, to order them. ihe defendant has u-c paced the plaintiff in a position t ma.e r . eieotiou to sue Ins undisclosed principal. Juogm nt therefore, must he against the defendant fw L2 L2s with ens s, leaving it to him to recover the amount from his principal, if he hj s one,”

Blunders v. Keid.—Judgment was giv>-n her. in as foikws

• /\ ,na Bl<'-r °f a ship is uoiaby entru- : cu with the discharg os Wijl a.- the lining of '.he •ihcers and scauieu of the snip in he Home port—(‘* Story’s Agency ” 120) and to release the owner from a.iy claim arising therefrom ; it Woudl be necessary to pr-.ve that ihe.e whs a specific contract minting the powers of the trustee. The plaintiff ap ears to have ha, i ihe power to lure and di-charge. He se As to recover from the owner the sum of 1,11 j7n paid by him to ratify the claim of one Aod. i son, emp.oyed in the deli ml.mt’s vessel. The defendant, wa* awde of Anderson’s claim at the time i; ocouiied, ami made no elimt to u aside if it was incorrect or unfounded, Thne is a degree of susfhcion aLtachiiia to Tie conduct of the plaintiff in so long delaying the presea-

tation of his claim, but, in the whole circumstances, I am of opinion that he is entitled to a judgment.”

Carver v. Tyree.—His Worship gave judgment in this case as follows :

m t f is case ithe right of property in the photographic van li-.vmg passed to the purchaser, iwho took dDi-crv, and subsequently used it and made rdterations upon it, I am of 0.0111011 that the, plaint if is entitled to judgin' lit for the bal ..iir,e of the pi ice sued for, W'lhnut. prejudice to any chum of damages for hreaco of contract the 'e'endunt may have by cros"-action. Judgment tor th.- plaintiff for LUO and costs, - ’

.Vice v Carver His Worship*, in delivering judgment, said:—

the did on. hint contract'd to build a photocrap.dc van “f a nzv us i-pecibed. ihe defend.int so ,aes,ed variations as being more BuitKine f .r tao purp s“, which the phiintiff, trusting to the defendant’s skid, agieul to. The machin , as it is at pres- nt, has turned out to be unsuitable for the purpose intended, the fiout. wliecls are not adapted for colonial use in a country distiict. The woodwork is imperectly out together, and i.be mater ial used nas ho u mmk th;vt tbc R( im j net' oi*t;n uhd th*** in* side _is expose'! to the w.-,uh. r. I am of opuuo . that in ihe wh le cbcu.nsfcances the plaintiff is entailed to, ilam tges. and I assess the amount at L2d, with costs. - ’

Byrne v. Lee.—! laim f r fraudulent removal i . His Worship gave judgment for the pi muff for Lt and costs.

Small v. i mu! foot —This was a case in vv nrirh the . lainfiff claim. d L7O 16» 3d. His Wot ship u n-suned the pi. innff.