MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2036, 2 September 1880, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

OHEISTCHITBOH. Wednesday, Septbmbeb 1. [Befcra G. L. Mellish, Esq., B.M.] Civil. Oases.—Brown v Bartram, claim £35 10a, acjourned from August 25th for judgment. The case was one in which certain land had been sold by plaintiff to defendant on terms, one-fourth cash, the balance in two and five years. The agreement stipulated that in the event of default being made in any of the payments it was to he void and the land to revert to the vendor. Defendant failed to pay the second instalment, and contended that by so doing the agreement was voided and he was released from further responsibility. Plaintiff, however, claimed a right to exact the completion of the agreement, and sued for the amount of the instalment which remained unpaid. His Worship said that it was usual in such contracts, when either of the parties interested failed to comply with the conditions, to consider the agreement nullified, but it had been argued that one party had no right to make default, and then benefit by his own wrong-doing, in which he agreed. Plaintiff had a perfect right to insist on the contract being carried out. Judgment must ba for tho plaintiff with cost 3. England Bros, v Hart, claim, £33 4s 61 for damages, being loss sustained by breach of contract. Mr Spackman for plaintiffs, Mr Cowlishaw for defendant. In July last defendant called on plainciffs, and, stating he was about to build a house, asked for an estimate. At that interview plaintiffs named a price for which they would do the work. Subsequently, at other conferences, sketch plans were produced, discussed, and altered at the suggestion of defendant. Nothing was reduced to writing, but plaintiffs, as they say, understood that defendant gave them orders to go on with the work at once, although perfect plans and specifications were not prepared. In consequence of these instructions, arrangements had been made by plaintiffs, in ordering timber, ke., for the commencement of the work. Finally, defendant informed them that he had received a tender from another party who was prepared to do the work for £SG less than the tender of plaintiffs, and requested them to reduce their price. Thie plaintiffs refused to do, and had not been allowed to go on with the work. They now brought this action to recover the amount claimed, being 7j per cent, on the amount of their tender, this sum they considered being rather under than over the loss they had sustaired by losing the job. These particulars being deposed to by Messrs 0. England and Martin, of the firm of England Bros., Mr Cowlishaw, without producing any evidence on the merits of the case, applied for a nonsuit, claiming that no evidence existed of a contract between the parties. Mr Spackman rising to reply, tho Magistrate said he was quite satisfied that there had been no legal contract, and the nonsuit must be given, but he thought something should be paid tj plaintiffs for the trouble they had been put to. It was finally agreed that plaintiffs should be paid £5 5s for their trouble. Judgment: plaintiffs nonsuited, and to pay casts. Sharp v Gilmour, claim £47 7s lid. Mr Perceval appeared for plaintiff. In May last plaintiff agreed to supply defendant with pigs, tilled and dressed, at 5d per lb. He understood that the tirre for delivery might be acy time up to the end of August. Thirteen were delivered in May and paid for, and a further quantity in the beginning of August. For the latter portion defendant refused to pay the price agreed upon. Defendant said that the agreement was for the pork to be delivered all within two weeks from the time the bargain was made. From a conversation he had with plaintiff sometime after the first delivery was made, he considered the bargain was off. The second delivery was made in his absence, and when he found the pigs at his place he wished plaintiff to take them away, offering tho use of his own cart for the purpose, but plaintiff refused to do so. In the interval between the two deliveries pork had fallen in

priee Id to ljd per lb. He had had the pork forced upon him. He offered plaintiff a price for it, which was refused. Hifl "Worship said that as the pork had heen used it must be paid for, but under the circura•tancea a lower price than 6d per lb must be accepted. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £37 18«, being at the rate of 4d per lb ; the costs of the action to be divided. Judgment went by default in —Mason, Struthers and Co. v Borzutski, £lO 6d ; same t same, £ls ; Lloyd v Stevens was adjourned till September Bth. Thttbsday, Sbptbmbbb 2. [Before G-. L. Mellish, Esq., B.M-J Drunkenness.—John Hall was fined 10s. Labcent.—Bob Beuben was charged with stealing a carpet bag and other property, valued at £4, in Lyttelton, and was remanded to] that place, to appear on the 3rd insfc. Dwobbtino an Osdbb. —William Patience was brought up for ncglcoting to obey a maintenance order made by the B.M. Court, Invercargill, and ponding the arrival of the warrant for his apprehension, was remanded till the 3rd inst.