RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, AHAURA.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1259, 12 August 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, AHAURA.

_,>■'■" Monday, August 5." " (Before O. Whitefoord, Esq., R.M.) G. Carter v. J. W. Day.— A claim of L 3 10s balance of the price of a pig. The defendant denied his liaijilityr The case had . been, adjourned- ..from 2nd inst. for further evidence. The plaintiff produced his books and showed the entries of the sale of the ' pig by ' hjs i salesman to the plaintiff. The defendant said he settled for the pig he bought of the plaintiff 's butcher, by allowing a contra account /he had against the butcher for a riding saddle. There was a balance of LI left, which he paid Carter. The plaintiff was nonsuited with costs. Wednesday, August 7. . John Dale was charged with being drunk and disorderly and with being unlawfully on the premises of John M'Lean, contractor, Ahaura. Mrs M'Lean, whose husband is at Reefton, said that on the previous night, about 12 o'clock, she heard some one prowling about the back premises of her house. At first she thought it might be some desperate raider making an attempt to rob her fowl-house, but it soon appeared he had other intentions, for he mounted a bench which stood behind the house and tried to force an entry through , the roof of the dwelling. The neighbors rallied, and kept the marauder at bay until the arrival of the police. Constable OUivier arrested , the prisoner, who seemed to be stupidly intoxicated , when brought to the lock-up. The prisoner, who had nothing to say in his defence further than that he had ho recollection of the circumstance, was sentenced to seven days' imprisonment with hard labor. . . -, : Friday, August 9. J. W. Dayv. Geo. Carter. — A summons to the defendant to answer a charge:. of using abusive and insulting language towards the complainant. This was one of the sequences of a dispute about the sale of pigs between the parties. Mr Staite, for the defendant, applied for an adjournment to enable the defendant to appear. He had not been served with summonspersonally, and he was not aware that the: charge was.-to be brought against him. The Magistrate, after inquiry, pointed out that by the Resident Magistrate's Act the 'service of the summons on an inmate of the houße of the defendant over 14 years of age was sufficient to compel his' attendance. The summons was left with the. defendant's wife. It was N stated that the defendant had left for Christchurch -to bring cattle, and he would not return for i six weeks. Other circumstances being stated the Court, the case was adjourned for the attendance of the defendant.

■■ John Molloy v. B. Maguirei— A claim of Ll6 103 7d, for goods alleged to be purchased by the defendant from the plaintiff, of which he (the defendant), refused to take delivery. The parties were formerly storekeepers at Paddy's Gully, No Town. The plaintiff was about relinquishing' business there, and the defendant was about establishing himself at No Town. The case for the plaintiff was that the defendant purchased goods to the amount sued for. A list of the goods was made out and entered on the plaintiff's daybook. The goods were sold at cost price to clear them out. After the bargain was made, the defendant objected to take some of the articles, and then theplaintiff erased them from the list as entered in • the day-book. • The amended list of the purchase money was carried forward" to the plaintiff's journal' or ledger, which was produced. The day-book was also produced, and the erasures shown of the articles the defendant refused to take.* The defendant took delivery of some of the goods— four augers, and one of those was afterwards sold at a profit to a man known as "Lord Gough." The defendant was requested to take delivery of the balance of -the goods, but he repudiated the purchase, and the plaintiff alleged that he could since have sold the articles at a profit to another purchaser. The defence was even made as alleged. Then defendant said that he went to the store of the plaintiff at his request. He selected certain articles he required, among them one dozen picks, which he. now found was not in the account sued upon, He had been cautioned to "keep his eyes open " when trading with the plaintiff, "" who was a good business man," and consequently he purchased nothing but what he actually wanted, and could sell again. He picked out four augers and a bundle of pickhandles, but he denied offering to take the rest of the merchandise, which consisted of small fancy goods, for which there was no sale. The plaintiff endeavored to prevail upon him to take these odds and ends, and told him, that in a flourishing place like No Town, he could sell anything, and, as a further inducement to complete the "bargain, the plaintiff told him that by buying the augers, he (the defendant), would be able "to make a good profit by lending them, even if he never sold one;" To thig the defendant replied, that if a man started to sell only pins and needles at No Town, he would meet with competition, and he absolutely refused to complete the purchase. The plaintiff was re-called to prove that he could have sold the goods to another person, and he said a stationer at No Town made him an offer. His Worship on looking over the items, wondered what a stationer could want with a fryingpan, which was charged, but the Court was enlightened by the plaintiff, / who informed it that the stationer was a versatile genius ; he was also a. barber, a sign painter, a tobacconipt, a news agent, and a literary .[ man generally. The Magistrate, in giving judgment said, when the evidence given on either side was so conflicting, the Court would have to consider the surrounding circumstances in arriving, at a conclusion. The entries in the plaintiff's books indicated that a sale between " the parties had been completed, and the erasures of certain articles showed that a close bargain had been made. The. defendant also took delivery of a portion of the goods, and ft was admitted .that he sold them again at a good profit on the price entered in the plaintiffs • bpoks, which went to show that the statement of the plaintiff, that he sold at cost price' to clear out his stock, was correct. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for the amount claimed with costs; Mr Staite appeared for the plaintiff; defendant in person.

Wilckens^ v. Hunter.— This was a claim for a nominal amount, the object apparently being to have |a. dispute between the parties decided. , The plaintiff 'ia a

news agent and'the defendant is a dairy*, man, both resident at Half-Ounce. The plaintiff said an agreement was entered into that he was to supply the defendant with the newspaper every week, and the defendant was to supply the plaintiff with milk. Matters went on smoothly until the parties had a dispute, when thejde- 3 fenda'nt sued .the plaintiff tor his mUkMl^ but giving.'hira credit for the newspapers supplied. The plaintiff being the upriver mail contractor, -was toattend the Court to answer the sumra6ns, v and a verdict went- by default against him. His case now was that there was a distinct agreement that Jie was to supply the defendant with food for the mind in the shape of literature, and the defendant was to supply his household with nutriment for the body ? in* the form of milk. It was fdmitted^oh., both sides that the articles supplied were good of the kind. No given quantity of? milk was fixed, but just what would be sufficient to supply the house. On some occasions the defendant did not call at all, and at other times he called and left ' more than was required.' The defendant said the quantity was -fixed at half-a-piut every day, and he only charged for the quantity he supplied in excess of this. 'A . witness was called named Pridgedn who no w supplied the plaintiff on the terms it was alleged the defendant agreed to' supply him. This witness said, he was not very particular about the quality of milk he supplied to the plaintiff, and he .. spoke as an expert when he said that sometimes the paper was worth the milk and sometimes it wasn't, "It depended; entirely upon the quality of the matter in the editorial articles." Judgment for tlw defendant with costs. Mr Staite for defendant. ..-."."; ".: ,^..!,> John Molloy v George Green.—- A claim' of L 8 2s for goods alleged to be supplied; intheWaimea district, some years ago.' The defendant denied all knowledge of the debt; and asserted most positively that he never was at the place where it was alleged the goods were supplied him.^ The .plaintiff contended, that he was nof ; mistaken in the identity of the defendant, who he alleged came to him. at Paddy's : : Gully and told. him he owed him ?^-- -16s from the Waimea. On looking over; his books he found the amount wds as sued for. The defendant now swore that the whole of his transactions with the plaintiff consisted pf^e purchase from him at Paddy's of 4lb shot, and a shilling's worth of : clout-headed tacks. The. case was adjourned to No Town to 12th; August, to enable the plaintiff to produce his storeman, Collier, who made the entries and supplied the goods— the plaintiff to pay 26s costs of adjournment. .. , Same v v M'Kenzje. « A claim ' of L 6 2s sd, for goods supplied at No Town. The defendant admitted the debt, but. said he. had a contra account to a greater amount, for which he had sued the plaintiff at No Town. Judgment for the plaintiff; fur-. ther proceedings to be stayed untU the case against the plaintiffhad been disposed of at ; No Town. .: . ';• ; .;