RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume II, Issue 99, 30 April 1867, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, April 29, 1867. [Before J. Potnter, Esq., R.M.] STRACHAN V. PONSONBY.

It will be in the recollection of our readers that in May, 1866, Mr. William Strachan sued Captain Gordon Ponsonby, of the Claud Hamilton, in the Supreme Court, for the recovery of the whole sum (£1,607) due to him for damages alleged to have been sustained through the nonfulfilment of contract in conveying 730 sheep and 20 head of cattle from Picton to Hokitika, and delivering and disposing of 'them there, the plaintiff alleging that the sheep Nvere improperly stored and cared for, and the vessel unnecessarily detained, so that when the freight Avas landed, they were so deteriorated in value as to cause a great loss when sold. On that occasion the defendant pleaded that it was a partnership arrangement, and that the loss arose irom the unavoidable detention of the vessel and the state of the weather. The plaintiff was nonsuited in that action, and he now sued Captain Ponsonby, then of the Claud Hamilton, and part owner of the sheep, etc., in question, lor the amount of two bills, alleged to have been given by the defendant to make up his half of the value of the sheep.

Mr. Pitt appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Kingdon for the defendant.

William Strachan, being sworn, said : In April, 1865, Captain Ponsonby and myself joined in a venture to Hokitika, in sheep and cattle. He had half interest in the affair, and gave me partly cash and a bill for £67 •" s lOd. His half share Avas £459, or thereabouts. He gave £392 in cash, Avith a bill for £67 ss. 10d., for the balance. I produce the bill. Captain Ponsonby Avas to remit the freight to the agents at Picton. Subsequently we had a settlement in Mr. CaAvthron's office at Nelson, in May. Accounts Avere taken betAveen us, and the second bill given as balance found to be due to me. I produce this bill. Captain Ponsonby was credited with the amount of the first bill at the time. At this settlement the first bill was never mentioned ; the amount that it represented was treated as cash, and the defendant was credited with the amount. The bill was then due —that is, on the 3rd May, 18 ""5 — although he had not paid it. I have never received the payment for the bill. Since that settlement I have received £40, on account of the two bills, the second of which became due on the 3rd December, 186.*". I received £30 of it before the second bill became due, in October, 1865.

Re-examined : When we had the settlement in May, 1865, 1 think I had the bill with me. The defendant did not ask for it.

The plaintiffs was the only evidence taken on this occasion, and the case was adjourned until the end of this week (when the defendant will have returned from Wellington), in order to admit of further evidence on the part of the plaintiff being brought forward.