RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4355, 5 March 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thursday, March 4.' (Before J. C. Crawford, Esq., R.M.) CIVIL CASES. '.;■'. ■ Somerville v. Groves.—His Worship, in delivering judgment in this case, said he would at once rule against the application for-a nonsuit, which was applied for on the ground that the cause of action arose in Dunedm only. With regard to the next point reserved, he was unable to see how it was -possible to assess special damage. The only data given during the hearing was as to the cost of a Londonbuilt landau. landed here, which it was stated would be' £2OO at least. Mr. Somerville was aman of long experience in carriages, and he could not suppose that Mr. Sornerville expected to get for £l3O, plus freight and charges from Dunedin, an article worth £2OO. They all knew that a country built carriage in England coidd be bought for much less than one built by a London maker. A. gun made in Birmingham at a cost of a few pounds, was finished up by a London gunmaker, and would be sold.for £3O or£4o. . He once had occasion to remonstrate with a Paris glove-maker on the' price of her gloves. She replied, " Mais, monsieur, c' est pour le facon:" He had no doubt that the plaintiff expected to get what might be called a colonial' article and not a first-class. London landau, and consequently he could not find.. special damage. But with regard to general damage, the facts appeared to him to be as follows : The article supplied was to be a landau, and he held that it was not a landau, but nondescript. The single transverse spring .in front, ' instead of two longitudinal springs, seemed to him sufficient to alter' the whole character and motion of the carriage, and. the mode of attachment of the pole was not'that suitable to a landau. He, therefore, held that plaintiff was entitled to refuse to take delivery, and to pay for. the article, and consequently he :was at least entitled to nominal damages, and to the costs of the suit. Seel' Addison on Contracts," 6th ed. p. 1061 ; Ashby v. White, 2 Lord Raymond, 955 ; Van Wurt v. Woolley, 1 M. and W., 520 ; Marzetti:v. Williams, 1 B. and Ad.,-424-; also, Feize v. Thomson, 1 Taunt., 121. ;: Judgment for plaintiff, ,203. and costs. Mr. Travers applied' for costs /in, the. first action, which were not allowed. ■".':;: " , ",' G. Crawford '■ iv.■ A. McDonald.—Claim, £SO. Judgment for.amount and costs;.; J. and H. Barber v. C. E. Belcher.y-J.udg-ment summons. Ordered to■/ pay 'withiu fourteen days..; in default,"; one calendar nionth.Several,cases were settled out;of .court. -.■"" :