COBDEN.

Grey River Argus, Issue 63, 7 June 1866, Page 2

COBDEN.

Tuesday, May 24. , - j~' (Before T. A. S. Kynuersley, Esq., E,M,) Larceny. Richard Gilham Quin was .Gharged,. o;i the^ information pi May Smith, w= : th stealing, at the township pf Raleigh," on the 4th inst,, one silver watch, pile bundle of cigars, one flannel shirt, and a pair of stockings, all of the -value of 10s, The prisoner pleaded guilty, !>iid was sentenced to six weeks', imprisonment -wilh hard labor in Nelson gaol. !' CIVIL CASES. O'Donnell v, Trask and Perritt.— Claim of £12 los for butchers' mtat "'supplied!'' It appeared from the evidence of the plaintiff that this action was brought for the purpose of establishing the fact. that a partnership existed between the defendants, They were butchers, and occupied two separate: shops on the North Beach. The meat npyfr .charged for was supplied to Trask, and debited to him. at the tin].e.in the plaintiff's books ; but when Trask left tlie -place suddenly the plaintiff then for the first time looked to Perritj; for payment of this debt, as he be.liev-*i-hiin to be Trask's partner. Mt Macjj(j£?ihe firm of Maclean, Fisher and as a witness, for the plaintiff, and/sauTlMB Trask 'was due them money whfeu he left, '" but he afterwards .obtained* pai-t of it froiq. . Perritt, through, Skclly and Scott. Perritt once acknowledged to him' that he was in partnership with 'Jraslr when he was a butcher on. the North Beach. At one tiino he held an acceptance which was si"ued by Perritt and Trask as, a -firm. That accept- ' ance was given by them for the purchase of the wrecked cargo of. the Sea Bird. When it became due they paid a portion of it, and gave a fresh bill for the lesser amount, in their joint names ; when it came due Perritt disclaimed all connection with it, but when they pushed him for it he paid a portion. In " crf!ss : examinatian, the witness -said he still held Perrjtt responsible fop the balance of the account, and he might or might not have more interest than the plaintiff in establisning a partnership between the defendants. The defendant, Edwin Perritt, . said that at the time of the wreck of the Soa Bird, Trask and he went into a joint venture with the cargo, to share the profits or losses of the transaction. He then was only slightly acquainted with Trask, .Mt he never, ' either before or since, had aiiytrasactioiiswith'hinr, exqspt once, when they bought meat together from Skqlly and Scott, part of which Ava3 booked to ca.sh, -mcl he had paid his share It. was the practice of the trade for two butchers to buy together, as they could do so to more advantage." Andrew Scott, butcher said he kneAv boththe defendants, and had had transactions with both of them." He ..never knew them to be .partners "as-butchers and the one never paid the others accounts' .Messrs Do Costa and Paul, merchants proved that they had had business transac.tions with both the defeudants as individuals but they "never knew them to be partners' Ihe Magistrate-said he supposed the plaintiff had gone into this case ayv' speculation, ;and as the weight of the 'eyiAgs -was ' decidedly against him hg wouldt's nonsuited, but he still had his remedy as against Trask Niblo'ck and party v. Rowe and partY — The piamtiffs did not appear, andrthe case waj3 dismissed with cos,ss to the defendants Perry and-party v. Stewart and>partV L_ ClainvQf £IQO damages for injiirytfone to* the plaintiffs claim by the defendants' dam Mr bhephettl appeared. for the defendants. The plaintiffs' claim is in front of one of the ten-aces on the North Beach, and the-'de-fendauts claim is situated behind -them ,TheV case for the plaintiffs was that the defendants had a water hole sunk on the boundaries of the two claims, but pnncipaUv on has been soaking through the 'bottom into the plaintiffs' tunnel for some tinie past and liowing over the top.' On Tuesday week last the hill slipped away,- and cracked' ritrht ' a q.)g about twenty feet on the sea side of the dam Avhich they attributed partly to the dam and partly to the hill settling down on the old working, On Sunday weefcone bf the piamtiffs went to the. defendants -^objected to the dam remaining -where it was and asked them to shift it, but they did not do so. The defendant's case" was. that for a long time past the paddock in which they kept the water- was puddled Avith^stiff^lav It did not leak, and never ; overflowed On Tuesday week the whole hill moved bodily leaving a large opening or crack of considev. able depth During the late heavy rains thY , storm water, instead; -.of ruiminor into the " gully, ran down-the cracks jnto the plaintiffs' claim, causing the damage for which coinnen, sation was now. -claimed. They ai ; ln I n4<,;fc_ that .portion of- their daif w^g^Jl plaintiffs' claarn, and .they took no stops ™ y?" love fn l , t when asked to do so by. the^lain, tiff?,. _ The Magistrate said he could not rive a decision until he visited the claims, wEich he would perhaps do on the foEowing '-flay and he would adjoui-n the ease to be ''settled on the ground. "" ■