RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, AHAURA.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1413, 10 February 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, AHAURA.

Friday, February 7. (Before C. Whifcefoord, Esq., R.M.) CIVIL CASES. John Elliott v. George Mason.— An action to recover L 27 Us 7d, an alleged balance of money due on a transaction in sheep. The parties are dealers in cattle and 3heep, and formerly traded together in bringing stock overland from Canterbury to the West Coast. The cause of the present action arose nearly three years ago, when the litigants were co-partners in a number of sheep which were purchased in Canterbury, and sold at Sprot's yards, near Hokitika. The sale resulted in a loss of L 54 odd, and the plaintiff now sued the defendant for his proportionate share of this loss, The plaintiff brought' a second mob of sheep, and on his way to market he met the defendant and offered him a share in the venture, but he refused to have anything further to do with sheep. The defendant then sold the sheep on his own responsibility, and made a laige profit. The parties also had dealings together in cattle, but according to the evidence of the plaintiff their transactions in sheep ceased after the sale which resulted in a loss at Hokitika. At the conclusion of the case for the plaintiff, Mr Guinness, for the defendant, moved for a nonsuit, ou the ground that as the cause of action arose in a partnership dispute before a dissolution of the partnership took place the Court had hot any jurisdiction. Mr Staite replied for the plaintiff. The Magistrate said that'if there was anything in the point, it was raised too early in the case. The Court had only the evidence of plaintiff before it, and he swore distinctly that there was no partnership subsisting between the defendant and himself, except in so far as they were co-adventurers in the first speculation. The case would therefore proceed. The defence agreed with the case of the plaintiff up to the firai sale at Hokitika, and defendant admitted his liability for a proportionate share of the loss arising from that sale. Defendant then alleged that although a slight disagreement took place about the loss on the first lot of sheep, for which the defendant blamed theplaintifr, inasmuch as heshonldnothave taken the animals to Hokitika, when he could have found a nearer market, yet on inspecting the second mob of sheep he (the defendant) agreed to take up a profit and loss interest in them, anU to pay his share of the cost of minding and driving them until they were sold. He (the defendant) was unavoidably detained on private business, and it was, he alleged, agreed between the plaintiff and himself that a man should be paid by the defendant to work his interest. The sheep were sold, and although there never was a settlement of account sales with respect to them, a general settlement took place afterwards, when it was tacitly agreed by both parties that the plaintiff should and did retain all the profits from the sale of the second 'lot of sheep, as a reimbursement for his loss ; on the' first lot. In support of this statement ah'-IOU was mentioned, which the defendant gave the plaintiff qn the occasion of the settlement, and which IQU it was alleged represented the. amqunt in full, agreed upon as due by th.c defendant to the plaintiff, and which was since liquidated. The document was not produced, plaVntifTsifouse was burnt. The pTain'tnF admitted the statement about the IO U, but contended that i£ referred entirely to transactions about pattle. The Magistrate, on giving judgment, reviewed the evidence at length, and remarked upon the time which the plaintiff allowed to elapse between the dispute and the date of bringing his action. The issue to be decided" simply' was' were the par,tie.s| (jo? adventurers' in the secoiid ' lot '6f sheep. The evidence was' contradictory, as is usual in similar cases, bu+ it was necessary, where a plaintiff was responsible for the delay in bringing on his suit, that he should be clear and distinct wijth regard to the circumstances of his caße when he did come into Court, A statement had been made during the hearing of the case that if the plaintiff did not get a verdict he must be guilty of giving wilfully false testimony, but this did not necessarily follpjyV for a sujfcqr might speak the truth and yet not b,e' able t$ prove- his gase to the satisfaction oi t.he Court. The accounts filed by the plaintiff were §übr mitfced by the defendant, who alleged that a full and final settlement of the partnership transactions had not yet taken place, ana the Court must, qn the evidence, take this statement tb'be coyrect, and that, in fact, the partnership had not 6ge'n TJfqnnd up. The plaintiijp wquld be nonsuited with costs, The plaintiff gave n.Qtiep of appeal. Mr Staite for plaintiff, Mr Guinr ness for defendant. White and Garth v. Arkell and M'Phe. A claim of LlO, disputed price of freight and carriage between Ahaura and Reefton. Judgment for amount with costs. White and Garth v. John McLean. — A claim of L 75 for goods; freight, 'aiid cash advanced. Judgment by consent ! f of the plaintiff, with costs. The Court; " adjourned to the 14th February,