RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4448, 22 June 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Monday, June 21. (Before J. C. Crawford, Esq., E.M.) BREACH OP THE LICENSING ACT. James Fenton was charged by the Inspector of Police -with having on the 12th inst. supplied drink to Frank Yore, the said Frank Yoire then being in a state of intoxication. Yoire had gone home drunk on the 12th, and had beaten his wife, till a member of the Armed Constabulaiy, happening to pass, called in on hearing the noise and took him into custody. When placed in the witness box, Yoire said he did not know where he had Obtained the drink. His wife also said she did not know where her husband had obtained the drink, but knew he was in the habit of frequenting defendant’s house. Under these circumstances the Bench could not convict, and therefore discharged defendant with a caution. Inspector Atchison said he would not forget the matter when licensing day came round. “THAT HEATHEN CHINEE” IN COURT. A Celestial, Ah Young, sued a resident of the Hutt, named Mcllvride, for £25, for nonfulfilment of a contract. Some considerable time ago plaintiff had visited defendant’s residence, and offered to buy a quantity of old horse shoes and scrap iron, and defendant agreeing to sell, the bargain was struck. Months elapsed, and plaintiff did not come to take delivery, which caused defendant to make inquiries after “John.” A countryman of plaintiff’s informed defendant that he had gone away to China. Defendant thereupon considered himself released from the bargain, and sold the iron to another person. Plaintiff has lately turned up and claimed £25 damages from defendant, hence the action. Verdict for defendant, with costs. BANNISTER V. DAVIS. Claim for £27 Bs. Id. Defendant had paid £2l Bs. 4d., and judgment was given for the balance. COTTER V. POLLOCK AND YOUNG. Claim for £SO for breach of agreement on part of defendant in failing to take delivery of some sheep purchased from plaintiff. The evidence in the case was given on Thursday, and the case was adjourned in order that.the Resident Magistrate might consider the evidence.

Mr. Crawford delivered judgment, and said : The deciding of this case does not rest so much on a point of law as upon the Weight to be attached to the evidence given respectively by the plaintiff and by the elder Pollock, who acted as agent for the defendents. As this evidence is contradictory, it requires some analysis to find out which is probably the more correct, that of plaintiff or of Pollock, senior. Plaintiff agrees to sell to defendant one hundred ewes and fifty lambs, at 10s. per head. Pollock the elder goes as agent to select the sheep. Instead of one hundred ewes and fifty lambs, he selects sixty-four, . ewes and forty-three lambs ; but he does not appear to have refused to carry out the bargain because he could, not find enough sheep of required quality to make up the whole number. Something has been said about another flock of sheep belonging to plaintiff, but I think that his version of that matter is the correct one, and that defendant could not expect to select ewes from that flock. Pollock the elder selects sixty-four ewes and forty-three lambs, and in addition to this he brands them on the rump. This is, I consider, proved, because it is positively sworn to by plaintiff, and Pollock does not deny that he may have branded every one of them. From the evidence given upon this point, I think it may be concluded that the sheep were, after branding, the property of the defendant’s, were it not for the statement of Pollock, senior, that the bargain was conditional on the approval of of his principals. Here lies the chief conflict of evidence. The plaintiff states that the bargain was absolute, and that nothing was said of a reference to the firm in Wellington. Which is the more probable ? I hardly think that Pollock would have gone the length of branding the sheep, if he did not consider the bargain as final. I also think that defendants, if they did not intend to cany out the bargain—or supposed bargain—ought, after so decided a step as branding the sheep had been taken by their agent, to have notified the same to plaintiff without delay, and thus have given him an opportunity to dispose otherwise of his sheep. Defendants state that they still are willing to take all the sheep that are-fat at 10s. each. For all that we know to the contrary, they are all fat. Defendants have not seen them, and Pollock, senior, has only taken a birdseye view of them, and Mabey says they are all.fat. The purchase, however, was made

in April, delivery to be taken in Hay, and if the sheep fall off at the approach of winter, as sheep will often do, the risk ought to be that of the purchaser, who has neglected to take away his stock at the time named for final delivery. I, therefore, order payment of the amount, -with costs of £5 ss.