BESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, FOXTON.

Manawatu Herald, Volume III, Issue 3, 10 September 1880, Page 2

BESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, FOXTON.

• Wednesday, September 8, JBBO. (Before R. Ward, E«q , R.M., and E. 8. Thynne, Esq.,J.P.) DESTRUCTION OP PROPERTY. W. H. Simcox, of Otaki, was charged upon the information of Enoka te Wano and Tamati Eanapiri with malicious destruction of property, in throwing down a fence. Mr Hawkins for plaintiffs, and Mr Hankins for defendant. Mr Hawkins applied for leave to withdraw the case. This was granted, informants to pay costs, amounting to £10 Bs. CIVIL CASES. T. Easton v. Kawana Hunia. — Claim £4 10s. Judgment ex _parte for amount and costs, 18s. W. Gr. Robinson, Trustee in H. Brown's estate, v. P. Collins.— Claim £8 14s Gd. Defendant disputed two items of " cash lent " in the amount. Judgment was given for amount and costs. .■'•.■;* ■?.'...,■ Same v. E. Peek. — Claim £3 15s 9d. Defendant stated' he objected to the accounts previous to. November, 1878, having paid the amount. A receipt put in was^ disallowed by his Worsliip.— Mr H. Fry gave evidence to the effect that he 'saw defendant pay Mr Brown some money in 1878.

Judgment for%laintiff for £2 15s 9d and costs. Same v. P. Anderson. — Claim £12 14s 4d. Judgment was given for £10 6s 4d, with costs, £2. Same v. T. Eawlinson. — Claim £1 2j Bd. Judgment by consent. Same v. H. Webb.— Claim £2 15s 4d. Judgment for amount and costs. Same v. H. Webb & Co.— Claim £6 2s 3d. Judgment for amount and costs. Same v. E. Cole.— Claim £5 12s 6d. Judgment by consent for amount and costs. - -Srirae v. 3V. j WeHsr~Olaim £4riGn 6d. Judgment by consent for amount and costs. Amount to be paid at the rate of £l every, fortnight... „, -.. Same v. torr— Claim £4 14« 7d. Judgment for plaintiff for £2 12s 4d and costs, 28s. ■ * . rtame v. Eockstrow — Claim £1 12s 6d. Judgment for defendant, with costs, 21s. Same v. Purcell- Claim 10s lOd. Judgment for defendant, with costs, 38s. Same v. Rheanicles— Claim £4 19s 7d. Judgment for amount and costs. J. Symons v. Aiken — judgment summons, for £12 11s £1 to be paid per month, in default 1 4 days' imprisonment in Nelson Gaol. Nelson v. Southey — Claim £5 15s. Judgment for £5 and coats, 445. E. Osborne v. Buckley & Hanson. Claim £4 9s 6d. Judgment for anwunt and costs. In the following cases judgment was confessed : — T. Williams v. Hodder, £12 13s F. Robinson, jun. v. Hodder, £16 Is. Thompson Bros, v Hodder, £l 18s 7d. M'Fadyen v. Hodder, £1 10s, H. Davidson v. Hodder, £34 18s. J. Brown v- Hodder and Mason, £36 10s 6d Trustee in Brown's estate v. Hodder, £2 15a lid. A TIMBER CASE. A considerable portion of the sitting of the Court was taken up by the hearing of the case Cross Brothers v. M'Conville. As the case is of no j local interest, and as furthermore the whole of the evidence for the defence had been taken in Dunedin, we have not reported it. Briefly, the facts of the case are these. The plaintiffs are timber merchants in Wanganui, and the defendant is master of the schooner Edith Eeid. Some few months ago the defendant loaded his vbssel at Foxton under agreement with plaintiffs with a cargo of sleepers and timber for Dunedin, the whole being consigned as per bill of lading to Guthrie and Larnach. In this a mistake was made, as the timber was intended for Messrs Fiudlay & Co., and the sleepers for Messrs Guthrie and Larnach. A telegram was therefore sentto M'Conville upon his arrival in Dunedin, informing him the timber was for Findlay and Co. That firm, however, refused to take it, and the shipmaster thereupon wired to plaintiffs to that effect. Defendant was most positive in his evidence given at Dunedin as. to- this telegram ; but plaintiffs denied having received it, and a search made of the telegraph records at Dunedin failed to show that such a telegram was ever actually sent. He telegraphed again twice, stating that he would sell the timber by atiction :| on behalf of whom it may concern," and these telegrams plaintiffs acknowledged haying received, but on each occasion neglected to answer the message. The timber was sold by auction, and bought by Messrs Fidlay & Co for about twotkirds the value placed upon it by plaintiffs, who thereupon sued the shipmaster for the difference in cost, amounting to between £50 and £60. Mr Fitzherbert, of Wanganui, appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr Haukins, of Foxton, instructed by Haggitt Bros., of Dunedin, for defendant. The chief questions to be decided were, whether defendant was justified in selling the timber, and, if he was not so justified, what was the amount of damage sustained by plaintiffs. His Worship reserved judgment, and will deliver same on Wednesday, October 6, at Foxton. Mr Hankins especially asked his Worship to rule whether defendant, as an involuntary bailee, was not justified in selling the timber for the benefit of whom it might concern he having discovered upon arrival at Dunedin that he was without a consignee for the timber. He held that as defendants were guilty of contributory negligence, in neglecting to answer the telegrams they admitted receiving, they must submit to the consequences of the act.