UNKNOWN

Manawatu Times, Volume III, Issue 112, 31 January 1880, Page 2

UNKNOWN

PIERS ?. WABBUKTON V. JAMB 3 BATIIOW. This was a claim brought for the recovery- of £2 10s., being balanc^of an ar count m the purchase 6F some poultry. The dispute arose through the different readings by plaintiff and defenilant of an order by the \atter, who is a ppuHy-dealer. m Wellington. Mr. Barlow gave authority to bo supplied with aquuntity of fowl, and instructed fat geese to be dispatched to him at ten shillings. As the plajn.tiflLwas then getting eight and nine shillings for single geeso m Pa}mereton> *nd- undertook to land the birds on the wharf i{V Wellington free of all charge, he understood doI fendant's order to be for geese at ten shillings each. He forwarded the number, but when paying the account Barlow deducted the difference, and .merely allowed five shillings, for each singly. In support of the claim, Mr. Warburton swore that his selling prices vfere from eight to twelve shillings ; that ha certainly would; not hava undertaken to supply tho fowl at five shillings ; and tha.t it was contrary to tho. enstom of > the trade to sell geese m couples, or to quote them for sale at per pair. In support of that statement he called Mr. Ivor James, who fully corroborated the last fact, although he. adm,iMjed. tlia,t he had rarley known geese to fetch ten shillings each; still as the defendant had specially, ordered fat geese, that would bj9 nearer, their value than five shillings. Mr; Hawkins, who. appealed for the defence, put the defendant into the box, who twore that ha would not have given the order, unless at the lawor price, as the geese, only realised seren shillings when plucked and trussed } that during all tlie years lie had been m business he had never even ortce given as high a. price as ten shillings for a •jng'e b lose ; ancl that it was, a common priii'tice to sell and buy by the pftuj. fTe. produced as a witnesf a commission agent, whom he had brought from Wellington ia support of the. statement, and' Mr.' Hawkins handed him a commercialrclipping from one of the. metropolitan journals to read. To the consternation of the defence, and the amusement o.f Court, th? evidence was most materi vl for tbe other side, as while ducks ancl fowl were quoted at per pair, geese were specially quoted singly. The case occupied a very considerable time, but eventually tho B.ench he^d that although the defendant might not hate intended the order to be at ten. shilling, his wr'tten instructions wcro somewhat ambiguou«, and as tho price charged w.as not mv hin excesss' : pf what it ha j been shown was the rnlinfj rate m Fivlmorston, judgmehfe would be given foi the amount clphned and costs. Thomas "Moffatt v. 0. Anderson. — Claim, £2 13s. Id. Defendant disputed the correctness of one item, and after evi< dence hao«been hea^rd on both sides, judg-.; ment was given for £2 83. id. and costs. ChniJes Walker v. |5. Phiipbtt— Claim £3. Juclg^ient confessed, defendant offerin!; to pay the amount by instalments of £1. , Manawatn Highways Board v. Joseph - Sannderat— (Slarea £Sf for rates. • Judgment for amount e!iaf>nedfand costs. - ' Same *". % '&.. Knighk. — Claifll, £6. Jodgra^pt foi 1 aajount, aiyJ. bos»». Same ». Thoinia Bowem— Olaina £1 fa 3dy. Ju^ni^nf for aniouotttjpi.d; 596^. . .. .. ;

, Same >^. A James Fentpn^Claimi dB3 8a JudgmentsfoMMnoSnt'and costs. , ,Sam<3 \'fs A Camerdn. -^fClaim £4 4», Juclgmenj^ior nmouht-wTd~ costs, 1 . J. Tboi^oh2#Claim £4 lOa, jjud^entjff.or.amcunt^ana^osts. • ' ■;•.-■." ; v< 'tfame 'MW' H- Wjg*?£r!Qhim £4 10s, • judgmenKforiamoimt'.wjith-^Doats. - - ! !.;• £1, Judgment gor amount «ndioosts. : • ... . Thomas Jfelson t. George Green. — Claim; . £6 %. 9d. Judgment for plaintiff : for -. £6 IPs. 5d., -and coita. >;: , •• £1 10s. sd. Judgment jfofr amount' with 1 costs. „ _„..- - •-.;.■ _ :.-^_J_ : : •■'"■■ H. Stevens t. George BicHe.-^-GMm £54™ = 12si 4d.~» This was; a dispute, arising out of ./ a pnpt.ner9hip, and occupied if eairly^wo^^ '.■■>■ days m the heicih^ 'for^ plain*- ; -. tiff, with jjßl2 10s. costs. Mr. StSite^'f ov ""• plaintiff, and Mr. Maclean for 3ef*nd&it. H. r Stev^ns v-. George i BTcltte^Glaim £t4?t 16s. This was a case arising out-of the prbf , cceding one, and" Had: the? '"samelrejiult-^ p Judgment for plaintiff. - ;• - * -" ; ■' G. F. Hawkins t: J. C, Christianwm-^'.-' ; Claim £6 11s.. 6d. for professional services. Judgment^orplairitiff:" ••■ < ; - .•• .;. -.- Horißepov. W. Akdorf.— .Claim £4 4s. 9d. being balance of amount due. -for work on a survey.^ Defendant did n<Jt -put in,au-> . . qp~p~Qar>nce, .;»nd/J.udgn\ent .^ww- -given. mY ... defaults '.. ' , Tf >rv-