RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Grey River Argus, Volume VI, Issue 424, 1 October 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, September 29. (Before W. H. B«vell, Esq., R.M.) There were no police cases this morning. CIVIL CASES. Woolfe, Mace, and Co. v. Alex. White, Moonlight.— Mr Guinness appeared for the plaintiffs", and Mr Perkins for the defendant. Mr Guinness stated that this case had been previously heard, but as several material witnesses were now in town who could not be had on the previous trial, the parties had agreed to have it heard again. The Magistrate said he could not allow such a course without the proper affidavits being produced in the U3ual way. Mr Guinness produced the affidau!;s. The Magistrate asked if they were sworn to, and was answered in the negative. The Magistrate said they ought to have been ; and he wished it to be clearly understood that he would not hear such cases, unless the proper affidavits were sworn and lodged in the usual manner. The affidavits were then sworn, and the case proceeded. It was a claim for the value of a cask of beef supplied. The plaintiffs' case was, that when they sold defendant a pig, he was asked if he could not take a cask of beef also. He replied that he thought the old man at the Blackball (Hammitt) could dawith one. Rodgers to whom this was said, did not know Hammitt at this time, and had no transactions with him. White ordered one cask to be put up for the- old man, at the. same time orderiug a pig. When he paid for the pork, he was asked about tie beef ; when he replied that the price was thought by the old man to be too much. Rodgers said he would take 7d. for it. . White then asked to let it stand over for a bit, and he would see it paid. Having been again asked for payment for the beef, White told the plaintiffs to summon him, and he would summon Hammitt. Woolfe also asked for payment, when defendant said he had not received payment for it himself, and he did not think he was entitled to pay for it till he got the money. Woolfe said it was high time they had their money, as they had waited on it for several months ; and also that they did not know Hammitt, but looked to him (White) for the money. They had always looked to White for the money, and had never threatened to sue Hammitt for it. James Ru^g remembered, in. January last' receiving instructions from defendant to' take a cask of beef from the London Butchery and deliver it at the Blackball. On the previous, trip, he took up a pig, on a similar order, to a man named "Davie " and defendant paid the freight. For tl'e freight of the cask of beef he had not yet been paid, as Hammitt refused to pay it, and asked him to take it on to Moonlight; but he refused to take it any further. When he took Up the cask, Hammitt was in the boat, and asked what it was. He replied it was beef for him, sent by White from the London Butchery. He did not object to it, but appeared to kuow nothing about it. White's goods were generally delivered to "Davie."— Henry Hammitt, formerly storekeeper at the Blackball, said he never had any dealings with the plaintiffs. Rugg brought him a cask of beef, but he never authorised him to bring any. Two days after, Rugg asked for the freight for the cask, when he said he did not intend to pay for it, for he did not authorise any person to send it, knew j nothing about it, and had got no invoice. , About seven weeks after, he got a bill for ib from the plaintiffs. He enclosed it in a I letter, and sent it back by John Miller stating at the time that he would take it at 7d. per lb., if they sent a person to see it weighed in his presence. He got no reply; but afterwards saw White, and told him about the dispute as to the price, and he arranged to go down and see the plaintiffs about it. In the meantime, he was to try and sell it. In town, he saw White and Woolfe togeth,er,and toH them .that he had not ordered the beef from any of them, that lie believed it was at the

Blackball when he left it, and they had better arrange their transactions between themselves. White never bought goods for him in town. — William Williams, plaintiffs' book-keeper, was present when Woolfe threatened to summon White for the beef ; and defendant said, in the. event of their being pressed for cash, he would advance the money on the beef. Woolfe then told him that he would look to him for the money, The case for the defence was stated by A. White, as follows :— ln January last, he was purchasing a sheep from the plaintiffs, when Rogers said, 1 ' There is a cask of beef we are sending up to the old man at the Blackball, will you look after the money for us T " He replied that he would, Rodgers said that he had more beef on hand than he knew what to do" with, when he (defendant) said to Miller, who was present, " There is a cask of beef going up to the Blackball, yon had better take it up with you.'* Miller said, "All right." He denied havr ing purchased or asked for a cask of be,ef as stated by Rodgers, When he was told by Woolfe that the beef was standing in his name, he denied any responsibility for it ; and told them that when he paid for the pork, he had said the same, and the clerk and Rodgers , then told him that the, beef had been entered in his name, because they did not know the name of the old man a,t the Blackball, and he was to look after the money. When he paid for the pork, the clerk said, tf That is your account paid." When Woolfe told him he would summon him for the money, he. said, "If we get judgment against you, we will nut look to you for the money. You could summon Hammitt, and recover against him ; and we never looked to you for the money, " Rodgers afterwards said to him, in the Oriental hotel, «'He did not hold him answerable for the money j but it was his mates who were making him do it, for if he did not get the money someway, he would have to pay it out of his own pocket." When he. called on Hammitt for payment, on plaintiffs' account, he told him he never ordered it but would take it at 7d. per lb., weighed out on the spot. He came to town and told Rodgers so, when he said, "You can sell it at 6d. or 7d. per lb., or anything you can get for it, rather than be bothered about it." Hg told Rodgers, he could send the message by a boat, as he was not going back to the Blackball. — In crossexamination, he said he was in the habit of purchasing goods in town for other persons, and sending them up ; but he neverentered into any contract for the purchase, of this cask of beef. They had never applied to him for the freight of the cask. He did not receive a bill for the beef until he was summoned for it. — W. L. M'Allister stated that he heard Rodgers tell White that he did not consider he was entitled to pay for the beef, but he wanted the money from someone. This was after the previous trial. — John Miller, boatman, remembered being told by White to take the cash to the Blackball. The freight was charged to Hammitt, and afterwards he took up a bill from the plaintiffs to Hammitt, and brought back a letter. Rodgers asked him to call on Hammitt for the money. He had previously bought beef at the London Butchery in Hainniitt's name for Hammitt, and got a bill from them, which he took up to Hammitt, and brought back the money.— Mr Morton, of the Oriental hotel, stated that he had frequently heard Rodgers tell White th i he did not hold him responsible for the beef, but he would summon him, as he wanted to be paid by somebody, as his partners held him liable for it. Judgment was reserved until to-day. Quinn v. Robertson. — Claim of £5, the value of a dog, and damages sustained through its detention. The defence was, that the dog was his property and in hb possession since June, 1867, and was sent over from Melbourne as a present to his wife. Judgment was given for the defendants, on the understanding that the plaintiff got the pick of the first litter of pups, in accordance with an agreement stated in evidence.

Wednesday, September 30. An offence against the Licensing Ordinance. — Samuel Wilson was charged with keeping and exposing for sale certain : spirituous liquors in his premises, in Mawhera-quay, on the 25fch instant, without a license. Mr Perkins appeared for the defendant^ and pleaded certain, extenuating circumstances. There was no. intentional evasion of the. law, or desire to defraud the re.ve.nue. The premises were opened qn the day before the summons, was served, and itwas defendant's intention to take out a license, but he was, unwell : the shop was closed before, the service of the summons, and remained closed. The Magistrate said that, considering the extenuating circumstances, he would not inflict the full penalty, but tha police ought in this, and in -all cases where practicable, to have seized the. grog. The fine would be £5 and costs.