MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2083, 27 October 1880, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

OHRIBXOHUBOH. Tuesday, Octobbb 26. [Before G. L. Hellish, Esq,, R.M., and J. C. Kimbell, Esq., J P.J Oiviii Oases. —lnnea and 00. v Lever, £5 9a 6d for goods supplied. Mr Joyce appeared for defendant. Plaintiff is a brewer, and the present action ia the result of a dispute about an account furnished by him to defendant, a customer. A long time ago defendant, who cannot read or write, was rendered an account for beer by plaintiff, in which appeared a charge for a hogshead which had already been paid for at a certain rate. Its price in the bill had been added to. Defendant disputed the account, was sued for it, but before hearing the case was withdrawn, defendant paying a portion of the claim in cash and plaintiff deducting the overcharge for the hogshead. Plaintiff at this settling, which was done in a public house in Christchurch, obtained an acknowledgment from defendant of bis remaining debt, promising, if the account was not proved correct by the books, to rectify it. The account turned out to be all wrong, defendant refused to pay it, and hence the present suit on an account which included the hogshead already paid for, with the costs of the withdrawn suit tacked on as well. Plaintiff oalledl — Stephenson, a carter and salesman in his employment, who deposed that sales of beer had been made the defendant at' 2s per gallon, which had been charged to him in Innes’ books at 2s 6d per gallon. That it was a common practice of the establishment to sell beer at 2s and even Is lOd, but it was invariably charged in the books at 2a 6d per gallon. A barrel debited to defendant had been returned by him. The hogshead of beer wrongfully charged to defendant as before mentioned, had again made its appearance in bis account, notwithstanding plaintiff’s promise to omit it. Defendant had repeatedly promised witness to pay the account due by him if it were corrected. Christopher Lance stated that he had been clerk to Innes and 00. Mr Innes had told him to charge Lever with the hogshead of beer a second time, although it had been paid for once. He pointed out in defendant’s account several items which had been overcharged by order of Hr Innes—sales of beer made at 2s but booked 2s 6d per gallon. Defendant when he made the settlement spoken of before had an appointment made with him by plaintiff at the brewery, at which the books were to be examined for the verification of the account. Defendant attended, but plaintiff did not. Witness showed Lever the books, and as the latter could not read, explained the position of his account. For doing this he was afterwards turned out of the office by Hr Innes. He knew of the practice of the firm as to selling for one price and charging another. Hr Innes said that the evidence of the last witness was unreliable, because it was the result of spite on account of his having been discharged. It was not true that beer was sold at one" price and charged in accounts at another. The price was 2s for cash and 2s 6d if booked. He always instructed his salesman Stephenson to sell on these terms. The witness Stephenson was recalled, and stated emphatically that his former evidence was strictly correct. The Bench, addressing Hr Innes, said he seemed to have no conception of the difference between right and wrong. Judgment would be for plaintiff for £1 18s, the amount really due by Lever. Plaintiff would however have to pay costs £1 12s, expenses of one witness 10s, and solicitor’s fee £1 Is, and the Bench could not allow this matter to pass without expressing their opinion that the revelations as to plaintiff’s manner of transacting business disclosed the practice of a most disgraceful system, the recollection of which would certainly not assist Mr Innes if ever he came before that court again. Oohen v Shand, 10s, balance due for an opera glass. Plaintiff alleged that defendant had taken from his shop two opera glasses priced 35s and 25s on approval. Ha brought one back, and paid 25s for the other to plaintiff’s son, who received it, and whom he told that that was the price agreed upon for it with plaintiff. The price however should have been 355, and when applied to for the difference defendant refused to pay it. Plaintiff now sued him for it. Afteriearing the evidence, the Bench thought sufficient care had not been taken by plaintiff, and gave judgment for defendant with costs, Oohen v Ivuiti, £ls, for goods supplied on the guarantee of defendant to a third person. Judgment for plaintiff with costs. Brooks v Scott, 5s for cab hire. Defendant with two others took plaintiff’s cab from Cathedral square to Bingsland school, and, another person having joined them, they returned in it to Gloucester street. Plaintiff demanded the amount claimed as his legal fare. Defendant offered 3s, which being refused, he said he would see plaintiff before he would give any more, and the present action was brought for recovery of the fare. After evidence had been taken, the case was adjourned for a week to enable the distance driven over to be ascertained, defendant paying costs of the adjournment. Wade v McDougal, £1 4a for wages. The matter in dispute was Bs, a week’s wages of a servant girl. For defendant, Mrs HcDougal produced a sheet almanac, on which she had marked off the dates of payment of the girl’s wages, and swore by it. By some very curious but unimpeachable documentary evidence brought by plaintiff, this tally was proved to be a week out, being that much incorrectly in favor of the mistress. Judgment was given in favor of plaintiff for £1 3s with costs. Mr Stringer appeared for plaintiff ; his office was no sinecure, it took all ;his powers of persuasion, combined with many sharp reproofs from the Bench, to restrain the loquacity of the ladies of the case within the bounds of decorum required by the Court. Campbell v Hobson, £l4 19s Gd. Defendant is a member of the Hope of St. Albans Lodge of the Ancient Order of Druids. His wife was attended under the rules of theOrdorby the lodge doctor. The nature of her complaint induced the latter to recommend an operation, and Dr, Campbell was called in and performed it, for which he claimed the above amount. Hr Spackman appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr Stringer for defendant. The evidence showed that defendant had not given authority for the employment of Dr. Campbell independent of the lodge benefit regulations, nor had it been made known to him that he would be charged for the services rendered. Judgment was for defendant, with costs. Judgment was for plaintiffs by default in City Council v Alexander, 7s Gd: Culliford v Comer, £1 lls ; Moore and Bon v Spencer, £6 ss; Strange and Fountaine v McFarlane, £5; Main v Hughes, £1 10s; Cohen v Phillips, £3 15s ; Lever v Rowe, XI 3s 6d ; same v Oanahan, £2 4s Gd ; same v Bourdon, £2 3s Gd; Stranaghan v Edwards, £5 4a Id ; Button v Comer, £1 8s ; and Moore and Son v Orton, £4 10s. By consent in Monzies v Delaney, £ll3s Id; and Batchelor v Alsop.