MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2131, 22 December 1880, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

OHBISTOHUBOZL Tuesday, Dboembbb 21, [Before J. Ollivier and J. Sims, Bsqs., J.P.’s.] Oirxii Oases,—Hobday and Co, v Benjamin, £6 3s Bd. Mr Thomas appeared for plaintiffs. This was a suit against defendant for goods supplied to his wife before his marriage to her. The debt was not denied by Mrs Benjamin, and judgment was for plaintiffs with costs and solicitor’s fee. Hooper y Innes, £l3 Is. Mr Stringer for the plaintiff, Mr McConnel for defendant. Plaintiff is a jeweller, who bought the business and book debts of one Burton, of Cashel street, the business having been carried on by M. MoOallum, who, however, was only Burton’s manager. The amount sued for was one of of the debts found on the books when purchased. M. MoOallum deposed that plaintiff bought a clock and, subsequently, his wife bought another clock, which, together with some repairs done to watches, the defendant refused to pay for. Crossexamined, he said the business, at the time of the sale to defendant, belonged to Burton, although the bill heads of the concern bore only the name of McOallum. The latter had at one time been in business for himself, but there bad been no assignment of it to Button. Mr MoOonnel, on several grounds, applied for a nonsuit, which the Bench granted, because it was reasonable to believe that Innes thought he was dealing with McOallnm, who had billed him for the amount, and who could only be the plaintiff in any suit for its recovery. Judgment, plaintiff nonsuited with costs. Ah Chong v Greaves, £2 18s Bd, for goods and money lent; judgment for plaintiff with costs. Wilson v Scott, £ll 10s. Mr Cowlishaw appeared for plaintiff, Mr Thomas for defendant. Plaintiff deposed that on August 26th, he bartered a heifer with defendant for eight tons of seed potatoes, and offered him another beast for six tons of large potatoes. Defendant did not agree to trade with him for the second heifer, but afterwards came to terms with his assistant. Witness afterwards sent an order to defendant for three tons of large potatoes, but received seed potatoes, although he did not want them. He sold them however, at a loss. Defendant refused to supply him with any large potatoes, or return the second beast, and witness brought the action to recover the money value of both heifers. The salesman of last witness stated that defendant agreed to buy tho second heifer for five and a half tons ' of potatoes, without menfi ing the fact that

[ . plaintiff had declined to take seed. He was misled by defendant, and drew up a sale note i of the transaction under that misapprehension. Defendant produced the document mentioned by last witness, which set out that two heifers had been purchased for thirteen and a half tons seed potatoes. Witness denied point blank the statement of plaintiff as to any implied agreement as to large potatoes, or that he had misled last witness in any way. He called a witness, who swore to having heard the salesman offer the second heifer to defendant for five and a half tons seed potatoes. After hearing addresses by counsel, the Bench said plaintiff must be non-suited. The balance of evidence showed that seed potatoes had been accepted as payment, while now, after having received portion, and having actually sold them, plaintiff sought to recover the whole money value of the beasts. Plaintiff non-suited with costs, solicitor’s foe, and expenses of one witness. Smith v Bennet, £ls 18s 3d, for painting, paperhanging, &c., in 1876. Defendant demurred to the amount charged as excessive. The Bench said he should have taken steps in order to prove his assertion, the time the bill had been due had been ample for that purpose. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs. Hobday and 00. v Davis, 17s 6d, the price of a small suit of clothes. Mr Thomas for plaintiff. Plaintiff’s case was that he had sent by order to defendant’s house some suits on approval, one of which had been so badly used os to make it unsaleable. He to take it back, and charged the defendant with its cost, but the latter refused to pay, hence the present action. Defendant stated that the suit in question was one which he distinctly ordered plaintiff’s salesman not to send. When it arrived he had allowed his little boy to try it on, because it was nearest the right size of any of the lot sent, and he wanted to judge by it for future purchases. That done, the suit was carefully folded up and returned to plaintiff, who shortly after wrote him, returning the clothes, and asking for their price. Ho refused to buy, again took them back, and this process was gone through three times, till finally plaintiff’s salesman threw the bundle at defendant, who now produced the suit and exhibited it to the Court. Plaintiff’s salesman said the suit was damaged, which it hod not been when sent from the shop. The Magistrate thought no respectable trader would either send out damaged goods or deny the fact if be had done so. Judgment must bo for plaintiff, with casts. Mr Davis left the Court, leaving the clothes in the witness ■ box, and saying that he would make Mr Hobday a present of them. Judgment went for plaintiffs by default, with costs, in—Wilson v Jones, £7 5s lOd j Baine v dikes, £4 5s 6d ; Sherlock v Lennon, £lss 3d ; same v McGin, £1 11s 8d ; same v Tonkin, 9s fid; Simpson v Collins, £9 Os 9d : Pitts and Co. v McLellan, £2 ss; same v Griffiths, £2 12s ; Houghton v Ellen, £3 15s lid ; Hobday and 00. v Collier, £3 13s 3d ; Milburn v Dickinson, £ls 10s ; and Oookson v Younghusband, £lO. Judgment was for plaintiffs in—Raine v Duff, £5 11s, and Stratz v Allard, suit for £llss, judgment for 5s and costs. Brown v Jameson was adjourned till December 28th, defendant to pay costs and solicitor’s fee< Knibbs v Wright, claim £32 13s fid, for work done and jewellery supplied. Mr Stringer for plaintiff; Mr Joyce for defendant. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs.