RESIDENT MAOIST KATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4178, 18 July 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAOIST KATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, July 18. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) 1 homas Anderson v. Woodmore,—Claim L 8 on a fraud summons, for goods supplied. Defendant did not appear, and Mr M‘l£eay, who Appeared for the plaintiff, stated that defendant had been in receipt of good wages, and had never made any overtures for payment.—An order was made for the payment of the amount within days ; in default, fourteen days’ imprisonment. Meenan v. H. Black.—Claim 9s, goods supplied. . Judgment by default for the amount claimed, with costs. Jenkins v. Hul.—Claim L2B, the value of a horse sold. Mr M'Keay appeared for defendant, Who admitted the debt, but asked for time for payment. Jas. Lissmau v. D. Black.—This was an AdtlOll tn recover LSO, the value of a box and personal effects contained therein, deposited With the defendant by the plaintiff The case was heard lost Week, and his Worship in giving judgment said: This is a naked bailment of goods to be kopt for the use of the bailor. In such a case the bailee is only liable for gross negligence. At the request of the plaintiff by letter, the defendant addressed the bdX and gave it to an expressman to be taken to the shed on the jetty in order to its being forwarded to Timaru by the s.s. Maori. The instructions to the expressman appear to have been loose and indefinite. The defendant did not obtain the nsnal shipping order, which he should have done, and the box was not forwarded and has been lost. The plaintiff has no recourse against the Shipping Co., the usual practice in shipping goods not having been followed. lam of opinion that the defendant, as depository, Las not exercised care and prudence. In this case the offer to keep the goods was made voluntarily by the defendant. In such circumstances it is generally held that the ordinary rule concerning gratuitous bailments is applied with more rigor towards the depository. I think, on the whole, that the plaintiff is entitled to recover. Lis estimate of value seems to me to be too high. I give judment for L 32 and costs. C. Ziele v. W. Insley.—Claim L3B 9s, for goods supplied.—Judgment for plaintiff, with costs. F. Johnston v. M'Lennan.—Claim 12s, for gasfittings.—Judgment was given for 7s fid, with costs.