Resident Magistrate's Court.

Marlborough Express, Volume III, Issue 142, 31 October 1868, Page 5

Resident Magistrate's Court.

BLENHEIM, MONDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1868. [Before S. L. Muller, Esq., R.M.] STENHOUSE V. WALL, AND OTHERS. This case was reserved from last Court day for judgment. The Court now stated that he had bestowed great consideration on the evidence, and found that two committees were formed with distinct functions —one to raise funds, and the other to inspect woi’ks. Messrs. Dodson, Ball, and Bomford, were the JFinance Committee; and Messrs. Wall, Beeves, and Murphy, were the Working Committee. It did not appear, however, from the evidence, that the finance portion were bound to raise a larger amount than they agreed for. It was difficult to give a judgment in the case as it stood, and would suggest that the plaint be amended to the working committee alone. Plaintiff had an undoubted claim against those who employed him. Were that course to be adopted, the judgment would be for the plaintiff; otherwise, he could take a nonsuit.

Mr. Nelson, for the plaintiff, declined to amend the plaint, urging that the chairman of the finance committee did not go into the box to contradict the evidence given by his client —that he had promised to pay him. The Court said the amount of capital-ap-pears to have been £4OO in bills, of which 80 per cent, could be drawn by the committee. They were only in the position of bankers, and liable only for the limited amount guai’anteed. Mr. Nelson claimed judgment against Mr. Dodson on the ground that he had promised payment, and it would ;be for him to appeal if he chose. ■ Or, he prayed the Court to strike out from the plaint all the members of the committee except Mr, Dodson, when he would allow a verdict to pass for the defendant, and afterwards ask for leave to appeal, on the ground that the decision was against the evidence.

The Court declined to stultify itself in such a manner. It held that the working committee alone were liable. Mr. Nelson then said he knew that Mr. Dodson, having got judgment in his favor, Would, he felt sure, be satisfied, and pay the money. The plaint was then amended, and judgment for the plaintiff Was given agairist Messrs. Wall, Reeves, and Murphy, for £24 I Is. 2d., with £6 7s; costs. The defendants declined to receive any expenses.

-* GOBBLE V. ATWOOD. Mr, Nelson appeared for the defendant. *! James Gorrie,-.timber merchant, deposed (that his demand was for £37 Bs. Id. for. timber supplied to defendant by his agent. ' Having demanded the account he refused to /pay it. In August a cargo of timber was brought for Gapt. ; Seott,- which was place d <in his hands for sale -ion: certain terms, And certain sales were*made. ■ Afterwards he found John Williams forking on the "timber, who stated that he was employed 1 by- the defendant. Haying cautioned, him not j to remove any , of it—that it was in

witness’ hands—he took tally of it. On three several occasions afterwards he saw Williams removing the timber. By Mr. Nelson : Williams did not tell me Atwood was to have it at 11s. per 100. I was to pay Scott 11s. for it. Never saw defendant in the case. Scott told me he never sold any of that timber to Atwood; but said that I was to sell it, and make my returns to him. This was previous to Atwood taking it. Told Williams distinctly that defendant would have to pay me my usual price. Knew that Atwood expected timber from Capt. Scott at 11s,, but told him he would have to take it as my timber. Did not say I would leave it to be settled after, whether this was Atwood’s or not. Scot did not lead me to understand that he had agreed to supply Atwood at 11s., but that a conversation had taken place about supplying him with some timber. Scott told me that he did not know Atwood in the matter at all.

Angus McLauchlan, draper, remembered a cargo of timber coming, and being laid opposite M'Artney’s house, within the last 3 months. Scott asked me to take charge of the timber, and I told him the best thing to do would be to hand it over to Gorrie for that purpose. He afterwards told me he had handed it over to him. Also, another cargo subsequently ; in all, 30,000 feet. By Mr. Nelson: Scott told me he had sold some timber to Atwood prior to handing it over to Gorrie. Atwood and Williams called to see me about the timber, and I told him he could take what quantity he liked. In consequence of Williams refusing to give me any tally of the timber, I sent Gorrie to him. Asked Williams several times about it. Gorrie took the whole lot, and Atwood was to get it out of the lot, and pay Gorrie, but nothing was said about the price. Atwood told me it was at 11s.; understood Atwood was to get about 6,000 feet.

By Mr. Gorrie: Am quite positive Scott said defendant was to have 6,000 feet out of that lot.

Mr. Nelson applied for a nonsuit on the evidence of last witness.

Mr. Gorrie would prefer to adjourn the case for the attendance of (Japt. Scott. Mr. McLauchlan understood that "Williams had selected the timber before he wanted the tally, while it was in his charge. He told Gorrie, who went down at once and stacked the timber for Scott’s benefit. John Williams, carpenter, deposed getting some timber for defendant on Aug. 20. He told me to go to Henderson, who sent me to McLauchlan. McLauchlan told me to go and take what I wanted, and give him a list of it. Went down and saw some that would do, and marked it, but did not stack it then About a week after—about September 2nd —went down again, and was picking some out when Gorrie came over in a boat and told me he was agent for Scott, and said what I required I must give him a list of in future. Went to McLauchlan a day or two afterwards, who said Gorrie had something to do with it, and I could give the list to either one or the other, as I liked. After this, Scott came to me and said I was to render the account to McLauchlan. I said Gorrie claimed to be the agent; he said cither would do, it did not matter. Did not tell me how much, or the price, 'fold McLauchlan I should want 5,000 or 6,000 feet. Have bought some timber from McLauchlan on my own account since that. By Mr. Gorrie: I made a cross in pencil on all I intended to take; you have the list. You told me that you were in possession of the timber. I went over to you this morning to ask when I gave you the list. I sold some timber for you to Earll while working at the stack. The Court granted a nonsuit, with £3 10s. costs to defendant. EDUCATION' BOARD V. EICHAED KEEENAN. Defendant did not appear. John Emerson deposed that he was the person authorised to collect the Education Hate, and the defendant was entitled to pay it, which he had not done. He first said he had paid it, and ; afterwards said he thought he i had, but now he never would payit. Judgment for plaintiff, with 9s. costs. PARKER BEOS. V. SIMMONDS.

Defendant only acknowledged £3 7s Hd of the amount; the other account .was for some other person, as he did not know any Mrs.; H. Simmonds. He disputed all during March. William Parker proved that defendant had an account with his firm ; and that his mother got the goods charged for in March, except a pair of boots, which he got himself. Henry Simmoncls said he only lived with his mother, whom he paid for his board and lodgings, being, often away,in the country. At the time charged for he was away from home. He never authorised his mother to get anything on ; his account. He got a pair of hoots during March. ’ X: Judgment for plaintiff, with 13s. costs.