Resident Magistrate's Court.

Marlborough Express, Volume IV, Issue 172, 24 April 1869, Page 5

Resident Magistrate's Court.

BLENHEIM, MONDAY, APRIL 19. [Before S. L. Muller, Esq., R.M.] MACAULAY V. OAPART. Mr. Pitt, for plaintiff, claimed £75 17s. for goods delivered to defendant for sale, as his servant, and for which he had not accounted. John D. Macaulay, publican, _ residing at Kenwicktown, was a partner with the late Arthur Kinsev while Oapart was in his "employ at Manuka Island. Supplied him with goods as* stated in a bp ok produced j a portion was old stock left at Kinsey’s cMth. Had received £27 from he had given him credit. The,.goods sent up had not been paid for, nor returned. All the complaints defendant ■ had made was that on one occasion he said 3 bottles were broken. By Nelson; Engaged defendant as cook, to put persons across the river, and sell stores to travellers, as my servant. Have been there frequently since October, and was aware he was giving credit. Told him he was responsible. Gore conveyed part of the goods. Entered the account first on a piece of paper, and then copied them into the book produced. Never sent an invoice to defendant, or got a receipt for them, but on telling him what I had sent he never objected. Sometimes had doubts that things were not going on right, and spoke to Gore and. to defendant about it, who said there was a lot in the books. In February or March asked him to give an account of the monies received. Sent to Grant to bring me what money there was, who brought £7. Afterwards sent to defendant to bring down the books and monies. The house has seven rooms. Have

told him when I helped myself, or when my servant was there. It was en'ered in the books against the firm. Have not given him credit for it. Sent the goods whenever Oapart sent word he was short. The prices were those usually charged. John Gore deposed that in October last He received certain goods from plaintiff, which he delivered to defendant.

Mr. Nelson applied for a nonsuit on theground that the agreement with Oapart, being for exceeding £lO in value, ought to in writing, under the Statute of Frauds. The Court said there was no necessity for Mr. Pitt to reply to the argument raised. The Statute did not apply to the present case.

Henry Oapart deposed he was engaged as cook at Manuka Island, to put people across the river,and sell nobblers,giving an account every night. Had charge of the grog. Gx-ant afterwards came up, and brought a new book, and I gave him an account every night. Mr. Pitt claimed the right to seal up such parts of the account book as did not apply to the present case, but afterwards withdrew his request. Examination continued: Gave Grant an account every night. Never undertook to be responsible. Plaintiff never asked for a settlement of the account; he only asked me for the money. Since leaving he has never asked me for a settlement, but asked him for one ; he said I should have to wait 12 months, and I could stay with my horse without charge. Refused this, preferring to pay and be paid. Plaintiff was often at the Station, but did not want to go over the accounts or take stock.

Archibald Grant, examined by Mr. Nelson, said- he was not manager for plaintiff at the Station, but kept the books at the place by plaintiff’s direction, who also said defendant had charge of the Accommodation House. Entered the accounts as debtors to Macaulay. Received £7 from defendant on January 15, which appeared to be all the cash taken up to that time. The amount of the accounts in the book is over £ 10, but Ido not know how much. Defendant conducted himself steadily enough. I gathered from Macaulay that he was dissatisfied with defendant’s conduct. The goods were secure enough ; I had no charge whatever over the goods, but considered defendant responsible ; if he was not, do not know who was. I was charged Bs. a bottle for grog. The plaintiff was called for the defence, and said he had requested last witness to see what was in the books, but had no idea what the credits came to. Never sent a bill in for any of them. Am willing to give defendant credit for the accounts. Mr. Nelson addressed the Coui't, and asked it to take a note of his objection—-that if there was an agreement, it ought to be in writing. The Court found that Oapart was responsible for any deficiency in the stock. The judgment would be for plaintiff, subject to a statement of accounts.

The Court adjourned for two hours to admit of the accounts being gone into, and. afterwards allowed defendant a set-off of £34 Bs.