RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GREYMOUTH.

Grey River Argus, Volume XI, Issue 995, 4 October 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GREYMOUTH.

Tuesday, October 3. (Before W. H. Revell, Esq., R.M.) CIVIL CASES.

Thompson, Smith and Barkley v. Alexander Aitken. — This waa an action brought by the plaintiffs, the well known drapers of this town, against the defendant, the district engineer of Cororaandel, to recover the sum of L3O 16s for goods alleged to have been supplied by defendant's instructions to Messrs Hurst and Fosberry. Mr Perkins appeared for the plaintiffs ; the defendant was not present, but had made an affidavit at Coromandel denying his liability. Mr J. S. M. Thompson stated that he was one of the firm of

Thompson, Smith and Barkley. At the time when the debt was contracted Aitken was managing the construction of the telegraph line, and Hurst and Fosberry were employed under him. Aitken gave him a verbal order to supply them with what they required, and just before he left Greymouth he told him not to supply any more goods without a voucher. On 16th March Hurst came in with Aitken and got goods amounting to L 6 3s, and Aitken ordered him to supply the goods to Hurst. The next entry, LlO, was for goods supplied to Fosberry. All the entries were made to the account of Mr Aitken. There was no account against Hurst or Fosberry. The reason why Aitken did not pay Hurst and Fosberry's accounts was that he would get vouchers passed for the amounts. He lent Hurst money on the racecourse, which he mentioned to Aitken, who made no objection to it. He had sent the bill to Aitken several times, but never received a reply. Mr J. Barkley corroborated the above evidence, stating that the firm would never have supplied goods to Hurst or Fosberry without Aitken's guarantee. Benjamin White deposed to serving the goods personally to Hurst and Fosberry. The goods were entered to Aitken. Mr Perkins urged, on the authority of Chitty, "On Contracts," that it was not necessary that there should be a written agreement. The affidavit of Aitken, District Engineer of Coromandel, was then read, denying his liability, and stating that no claim had ever been made against him while he was resident in the district. The Resident Magistrate observed that the good 3 were entered, at the time, to Aitken, therefore he should give judgment for the amount claimed, less the cash payment. Judgment for L2B 6s. Fitzgerald v. Kilmartin. — Claim for L 6, for board and lodging. — The defendant had paid L 3 on account. Judgment by default for the balance. Jones v. Margaret King, alias Mason. — Claim for dressmaking, for L 2 Bs, Judgment by default. Grant v. Swainson. — A summons for L 5 on an I 0 U. Defendant asked for time, as he was already under an order to pay L 6 per month. Payment ordered at 10s per week. Alexander Lee v. James Lee. — Claim for Lls, for money lent to buy a piano. Judgment by default. J ones v. Evans. — A summons for 13s lid, for goods supplied. Judgment by default. . Thompson v. Marryatt. — Claim for rent, and goods supplied, for L 2 14s. Judgment by default. John Tucker v. Rev. J. A. Taylor and Messrs Simpson and Parkinson, trustees of the Wesleyan Church Reserve. — An action to recover L 27, for breach of agreement in refusing to allow the plaintiff to take possession of a certain section of ground on the Wesleyan Church Reserve, alleged to have been allotted to him. Mr Guinness appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Newton for . defendants. John > Tucker: Was a chemist residing in Greymouth. Mr Simpson, one of the trustees, told him that land was to let on Church Reserve, and he accordingly applied for section No. 14. He. produced a form of tender which he sent in to the trustees, and two hours after the application Mr Simpson told him that the trustees thought his ofter was fair and reasonable, and that it was accepted. - Two days afterwards Mr Simpson told him that it was all right, and that he could go on with building his cottage, and he accordingly placed piles on the ground, and on the 16th September accepted .the tender of Mr Sansbury to build it. On the 22nd September he received a note from Mr Rudd, four days after the meeting of trustees, saying tKat his tender was not accepted. He afterwards saw Mr Simpson, who told him that it was a shame, and he would make the other trustees pay for it. The sections had all been let. The Rev. Mr Taylor stopped the drayman when he brought the piles to the ground. By Mr Newton ; The tender was dated on the 31th, and was given to Mr Simpson on the 12th. The tender was accepted .Mr Simpson and Mr Parkinson were trustees. Mr Simpson was a brother Oddfellow, and told him about it. He gave the tender to Simpson about 11 o'clock in the morning, and about two hours afterwards he told him that his tender was accepted. Was not aware whether Davey was present when Simpson told him that hia tender was accepted. Mr Simpson was the trustee who, told him that all the sections were ta^iiup. By Mr Guinness : He would ' nM iiave gone to the expense of calling ]

for tenders for building if he was not sure that his tender was accepted. Wm. Davey : Knew Mr Simpson. He was aware that sections had been taken up on the reserve. He took a letter from Mr Tucker to Mr Simpson about section 14. Simpson never told him that Tucker had got it, but said he thought he would get one. Simpson said he thought that Tucker should have been served with a notice, stating that he was unsuccessful. By Mr Newton : Was aware that tenders would have to be considered by the committee. He told Mr Tucker that he believed his tender would be accepted. This closed the plaintiffs case. Mr Newton called the Rev. J. A. Taylor, who stated that he had seen the tender of Mr Tucker. There were thirteen trustees of the Wealeyan Church. The first meeting of the trustees to conBider tenders for leasing the sections was on the 19th September. He was not a trustee. He was chairman, ex officio. At the meeting Mr Tucker's tender was rejected, and Mr Wright's accepted, which was proved by the minutes. The secretary had to inform Mr Wright that his tender was accepted. On Friday, the 22nd, he told a man who wa3 bringing piles that Mr Tucker had no land on the reserve. By Mr Guinness : It was not usual for the trustees to allow persons to build without their tender being accepted. If they did*so, they did it at their peril. John Simpson : Was one of the trustees of the Wesleyan Church. On the 11th September Tucker handed him a tender. On the same afternoon he saw Mr Taylor and Mr Parkinson, and he told Tucker that they thought the price offered was a fair one. He gave him to understand that his tender would have to go before the meeting, and he told him that he would use his influence to get his tender accepted, but he could not attend the meeting in consequence of ill health. In the course of conversation, Tucker asked him whether he should go on with his work, and he replied that he knew nothing about it. By Mr Guinness : He never told Tucker that his tender was accepted. A subcommittee, consisting of the Rev. Mr Taylor, Parkinson, and himself were appointed to value the land. He never told Mr Tucker that it was all right, and he could go on with the building, and that it was as good as a deed.. There was no determination arrived at by Mr Tucker and the bushmen about cutting piles. He told Tucker that he thought some compensation should be given him for the piles. The Resident Magistrate said that the whole transaction arose out of a misunderstauding between Tucker and Simpson. -It was evident that the sub-committee, even if they had been so disposed, had no power to lease the land. Simpson was evidently in favor of Tucker getting the lease, and if he had been at the meeting would have probably have used his influence with the other trustees to obtain it. If there had been any doubt about it, Mr Tucker could have ascertained by. going to the secretary who were the successful tenderers. Judgment would be for the defendant, each party to pay their own costs. M'Lean v. Crawford.- Claim for LI 7s Bd, for goods supplied. Judgment by default. .