Hawke's Bay Times. Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1871.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 17, Issue 940, 10 February 1871, Page 2

Hawke's Bay Times. Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1871.

Further Pro rogation of Parliament. —By a New Zealand Gazette, dated 6tli inst, we observe that the New Zealand Parliament has been further prorogued from the 251 h Feb. to the Bth April.

• Provincial Council Elections. — Electoral District of Napier.—lt will be observed by advertisement that the nomination of candidates is fixed for the 23rd Feb., and that the poll, if necessary, will be taken on the 2nd of March.

Resident Magistrate's Court. — To day, a single civil case— Dyett v. Hamon— came before the Court. The plaintiff claimed £2 for a cord of firewood delivered at the premises of the Hawke's Bay Brewing Company.—Defendant pleaded not indebted, alleging that the firewood was ordered for the the Company, and that lie was not personally liable. —Plaintiff deposed that defendant had ordered the wood and asked him how much it would come to, to which he replied that it would be ,£1 5s for cash, but he should charge more if he gave credit. He took the wood to the house of defendant, who told him to leave it at the brewery. He did so, saving that he would look to the defendant for the money. The latter did not pay him cash ; but told him he would pay him next time he saw him. Plaintiff replied that he would trust to his honr>r. His reason for saying he would look to defendant for the money was, that the Company owed him a long-standing account, which had never been paid.—Several details of the plaintiff's statement were disputed by the defendant, who, however, did not dispute having given the order.—His Worship said that ihe defendant was ceitainly responsible to the plaintiff in this of the Company, he had his remedy against them. A man might often trust an agent where he would not trust those for whom he was acting, and the plaintiff had shown that this was the case in the present instance. He considered that the plaintiff had been very usurious in charging 15s interest on £1 5s for a month. It was an extravagant charge— something like the Hindu rate of interest. —The plaintiff said this was the usual charge where credit was allowed. —His Worship said it could not be allowed in this case. As the defendant had been told that he would be charged more if credit was given, he would allow 5.s —Judgment for £1 10s and 9s costs; the money to be paid on or before the 28th instant.