RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5536, 24 December 1878, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, December 23. (Before T. A. Mansford, Esq., R.M.) DRUNKENNESS. Two inebriates were fined in the usual sum for drunkenness. CIYIIi CASES. Maginity v. James McColl. —Claim £2 is; judgment summons for the amount of a valueless cheque. Defendant did not appear. Plaintiff stated that the custom of persons passing valueless cheques wa3 becoming very common, and in this instance the defendant had narrowly escaped being dealt with in another way. His Worship that tradespeople as a rule were not particular enough in cashing cheques. Defendant was ordered to pay the amount by the 6th January, 1870, er in default to be imprisoned for three weeks. ■ English v. Moller.—Claim £8 10s, goods supplied, s Defendant did not appear, and judgment was given by default for the amount claimed and costs.

Tolley V. Stafford.—-Claim £l2 12s for services rendered as electioneering agent. Mr. Fitzherbert appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Travers (jcm.) for the defendant. Plaintiff deposed that he was an agent. Some time previous to the late Mayoral election he was engaged by Captain Stafford to work for Mr. Dransfield. Defendant promised witness £5 out of his own pocket if Dransfield got in. Defendant gave witness an order for £i. Witness ordered a buggy from Somerville's stables, to be charged to defendant. Witness took his account of £l2 12s to Mr. Charles White, who gave him £3 on account. Witness had to pay £4 4s for expenses out of his own pocket. Mr. Travers, for the defence, stated that plaintiff had been engaged by Captain Stafford to do what he could to return Mr.. Dransfield as Mayor. His Worship expressed regret that such a case should be brought into Court, and non-suited the plaintiff, Armstrong v. Education Board.—Claim £27 25., for services rendered as teacher of the Carterton school.—Mr. Lee, the secretary, appeared for the Board and admitted £l6 Us. 6d., for which amount his Worship gave judgment, with costs. In the following cases judgments were given for the plaintiffs :—J. Duff v. W. E. Teague, judgment summons, £47 25.; ordered to pay £5 a month, or three months' imprisonment; Casey and Macdonald v. J. Robertson, claim, £7 18s. lid.; W. Clark v. F. Mountain, claim, £1 10s.; N. Valentine v. W. Morrison, claim, £7 193. 6d.; G. Cooper v. E. Sheehan, claim, £3 125.; Bowden and Go. v. J. D. D. Hathaway, claim, £l4 9s. Bd.; McDuff, Horton, and Co. v. Ritson and Clifford, claim, £2B 75.; W. R. Williams v. G. Tonks, claim, £23 4s. 10d.; Jacob Joseph and Co. v. J. Hutchison, claim, £l2 Ss. Bd.; C. Thomas v. W. Sinolair, claim, £2 10s. 6d.

His Worship delivered judgment in the fol lowing cases:— BAIED T. M'DONALD.

I think the plaintiff is entitled to a refund of the £3O paid to the defendant. The contract dated 13th August specifies the property sold and the purohase money which was to be paid upon production of the title and execution of a proper conveyance. The contract is signed by the plaintiff, and by the defendant as agent for Edward Sheehan, the vendor. On the following day, the 14th August, the plaintiff paid to the defendant the sum of £3O, which in the receipt given for the amount is stated to be deposit on land and house, Clydequay, being the property specified in the contract of the previous day's date. The contract itself is silent as to payment of any deposit, and though the receipt for £3O is not signed by the defendant as agent for the vendor, yet it was contended that it was received by him in that capacity, and that he was bound to account for it to the vendor, and to him only, whlla It wa3 contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the £3O was paid into the hands of the defendant solely as the agent of the plaintiff, the defendant being instructed at the same time to raise by way o£ mortgage the balance of tho money required to complete the purchase; The contract is Bigned by the defendant as agent for the vendor; had the receipt for the £3O been signed by the defendant as agent for the vendor, I might possibly, on the authority of Edgell v. Day, which was decided mainly upon tho case of Bamford. v. Shuttlewortfy havf giYfln judgment in favor of defen.

I dant; but there are other considerations which are bound to influence me in the present case. i Though tho evidence is not as conclusive as it I might have been, there is sufficient to satisfy me that the vendor could not complete his contract with the plaintiff, and that the defendant, with a knowledge of that fact, and after application had been' made to him to refund the deposit admitted by him to be in his hands, either paid over the same to the vendor or credited to him in a running account between the vendor and the defendant. I therefore give judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, £3O, and costs, £5 lis. STBIKH V. ALLBN. On the authority of Cooper v. Willomatt, I am bound to decide this case in favor of the plaintiff. The trap and harness-were let on hire by tho plaintiff to Hosey at a weekly rent. Hosey had the possession of them for the purpose for which they were lent.' In sending them to the auctioneer to be sold Hosey was guilty of conversion. The plaintiff, who is the bailor, aay maintain trover against the defendant, the purchaser of the trap and harness, though the transaction was an honest and bona-fide one on the part of the defendant. Judgment for the plaintiff, £3O and coats. ItUXTON V. KENNEDY. There does not appear to me to be any defence to this action. The defendant taking advantage of information given him by the plaintiff obtained a sum of £3OO for salvage, having previously entered into an agreement to pay the plaintiff what was fair and just for his information.

I consider the plaintiffs claim a fair proportion of the salvage, and give judgment for £IOO and costs.