RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3956, 29 October 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Friday, October 29. (Before J. Bathgate, Emp, R.M.) Duncan Campbell v, Joseph Hopcraft.— Claim L2 os, on :i fraud summons.—His Worship ordered that if defendant did not pay the amount by the sth prox. lie be imprisoned for twenty-one days, Reid and (Hay v, F. M. Chapman (Napier). —Li.aim 1,41 4s, lor a reaping and mowing machine and extras. Mr Dcnnlstou appeared for plauitnis; Mr A. Bathgate (for Mr Stout) for delendant, Iris Worship read defendant’s evi deuce, taken at Napier, to the following effect; —rle ordered by telegram the machine in question on November 14 of last year, making it a condition that it should be delivered within a .uimight or else not lie m nt. It did not arrive however till December 12, and then it proved a V; M rough thing and not m vly made. Deleuoanfc and a number oi men to.-led it on a crop ox rye grate and found it totally unworls- 1

able, so he telegraphed to plaintiffs that he could not take delivery of the machine, and that it lay at plaintiffs’ risk.—The evidence cf the witnesses of the trial was also read, to a similar purport,—Mr Reid stated that the machine in question was exactly similar to a huu dred of the same class that they turned out last season, about none of which had a single complaint been received. Cross-examined : Any machine after being completed was put together to see that it was perfect before send ing it away to a customer.—William M'Naughten, fitter, gave corroborative evidence, —After Mr A, Bathgate had replied his Worship reserved judgment until he could inspect one cf the class of machines at plaintiffs’ yards. T H. S. Fish, jun. v. M. S. Watt.—Claim Til 7 16s 9d, a fraud summons on amount duo for goods supplied. Mr Mouat appeared for plaintiff.—Defendant said he was an agent, and bnught.these goods to sell again. He. had sold part of the goods ami been paid for them, but bad paid plaintiff nothing on account as he had been very unfortunate and got very little work to do for months past. What money he had earned had gone towards keeping his house and other expenses.—His Worship said people must not buy goods under promise of paying for them within a certain time and then pocket the money or turn it to other uses. —Defendant said he believed he was solvent when he ordered these goods, but ho could not toll what he had done with the money he received for what he sold—it must have been used in buying other goods.—His Worship said no man must vet into the witness-box and say he did not know what he had done with his money—he must carry on his business in a proper and clearway. —Plaintiff said defendant when begot the goods promised distinctly to return at once with the money. It was simply a commission transaction. The fact was defendant went about from one firm to another, getting goods for sale, and “robbing Peter to pay Paul.” Witness was not anxious to have defendant punished, but merely wanted him to arrange to pay the amount due by weekly instalments.— His Worship said defendant’s conduct could not be justified in any way whatever. He would be ordered to pay the amount claimed in weekly instalments of 10s; on the first failure to pay, thirty days’ im nr isoament. Judgment was given for plaintiffs by default in the following cases: —Anderson and Mouat v. Mary George, claim L 4!) 2s 3d, balance of account for flour, bran, &c. ; Robert Anderson v. James Patrick (Oamaru), L3l 3s 3d, balance of account for flour; M. Joel v. Samuel Woolley (Waikouaiti), L 5 Is, balance duo on promissory note ; John Alvarez v. Henry Wilton (Uamaru), LI 15s, for printing 1.000 labels; Lowden and Wilson v. Joseph Shearsley, Llf 18s 7d, for goods supplied ; Brown and Son v. James Patrick, claim L 24 ss, balance of account for flour.