RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Patea Mail, Volume I, Issue 85, 5 February 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

TlfUK.sfjAY, EeUKUAKY J. (Before .Major Tumor, R.M.) There was no police business to be dealt with l>y tin. - Court. Civil, (_'asES. MASON V. CoRiIIOAN. Aii action to recover lid Ids 6,1 tor grass si-vd SI I i ipliei Ito tin; <i <■ t'fl 11 Itu 1 1, seven lilies colli:liiini.e 21 bushels. .Mr Fit/hcrbert appeared lor tin- plaintiil;. Tin; order for the seed, and the receipt of certain bags containing il was admitted, but tin; defence was that the seed was little b,-tler than chopped hay, and Was oniv woilh dd per bn.snel, instead olds as charged. Ihe cost of the hays, and sixpence a bushel for tin; seed, was paidjnto court, hut was not admitted. .Mr Uiddiford, who had purchased a ipiantily ol th.; same seed, proved ihat he bad obiain-d IUU bushels ol the same from plainuil', had paiil os a bushel tor it, and had taken it away from plaintill's farm. He quite satisfied with it, and thought it well wortli the money. Defendant admitted that he had sowed some of the seed, but declared it worthless, and, in support of this view, called 11. McCarthy, a farmer, who said in; did not consider it grass seed at ail, luitthou; ht it worthless. He would not buy il at any price. s The Magistrate said that defendant; had used the grass seed and therefore was liable to pay for it. Judgment, would be given ccnscqaenly for the amount el im d, vil.li £2 7s Ud. costs. FHRLONa V. T i: NIC. A judgment sunnno is. SAME V. KrS.SKLI,. Both these cases were adjoined through ■want of proof of service. IVKSS A r . TOWN lIOAUP. This was an action to recover £l2 if, from the Town Board of Yanyle. for advertising rate roll, .and m her notices. Mr Fitzhcrbcrt, who appeared for the plaintiff, stated the cas • very lucidly, and wo give the facts in brief. The Carlyle Town B ami, as bound by the 6th section of tin. 1 Taranaki Ordinance, deputed'the Chairman of th ‘ir body, Mr Sherwood, and Mr Taplin, to sec the proprietor of tho Pate a Mak,. to mike arrangements for advertising the wants of the Board, including at that time the publication of the ratepayer’s roll, so as to allow any discontented with their assessment to appeal.

The evidence of Mr Ivess showed that he was a practical printer, that a deputation of the Town Board, consisting op the Chairman and Mr Tapl'm. had culled on him to ascertain his ad vc tising terms. Ho then told them that a single column would bo 3s per inch, and a double one twice that amount. On the following day Mr Campbell, the Town Clerk, came to the office, and handed in the assessment roll, with an order at the foot, to insert it twice (assessment roll produced.) On the first occasion, when Mr Campbell brought in the copy, he volunteered the remark that it might go in a single column. He set the first name, which wont in, but others would not do so, and he was compelled to set in a double column (a sample of what a single column would have been, with Chris!inn names, and half tin* particulars omitted, was handed up to the Bench at (his stage). Mr Campbell, the Town Clerk, subsequently saw and corrected fin.; proof of the roll, as printed, and witness then told him that it was not possible to put. it into one column, to which he (Mr Campbell) replied that he supposed h-‘ (the plaintiff) had done, the best he Cl U d. On (he. n-xt, day. Mr Campbell got three slips of the adve t'seincur from o/Hec f« r rh<* |i!irp-»sr* of posting. Mr Dale, the other ass cssor, was present, at the correction of the ‘proof of the assessment roll. The next day, Mr Campbell came in and asked witness whether the roll was to he charged a single op double column, and was told rhal it would he charged as set, a double column. ile (the Town Clerk) then brought in a mutilated column, to h-, set in lieu of the original one, and asked that that should he substituted, but he (wit m-s-) stated that ho would make no alteration on the contract, unless he charged for a new advertisement Subsequently a notice was received from Mr ft. b'. She’-woo 1. ordering him to withdraw the advertisement, hut as this was merely from the signer., and not; from the Board, he declined to depart from the instructions of the Board. He had made concessions to the deputation by stating that he would set the Bate Roll, in tabulated form, at usual rates, instead of double rates, which -was the usual custom, fie had done so accordingly, and the uiom-y claimed for that part of the. work was only one half of what was charged by the custom of the trade, which would at least have been one ami a-ha!f times as much. j In cross-examination ho slated that, on j the visit of the deputation, he had d-- ! dined to make any concessions on the j ordinary charges, hut had agreed to do so i i>n the Bate Bull. j

Mr Campbell, Town Clerk, was then ;-x----atnined and stated, in substance, that hj ; took the Moil to the ofliee of tin* Ihvt'ltA .Mail to Ik; inserted twice. At that tinni notliiay was said as to since, but Mr [vest said he was doubtful whether it could he got within a single column, lint he woo'd try. lie (Mr Ivess) tried the Jir.it na a ; and said he thought he could make it so com;' in. lad on going to the diiec at h.d: jnst o dock that night. witness foiiu 1 t(i<‘ prnol in a double column. On en<pi king the reason, plaintilf told him that ihoiig-li (lie first name was a short one and could be brought within lli<- measure, s--veral others emild m.t, and therefore .t w-a-i neecsaary to set it in double e.dnnm, on wnieli be replied thiit In- had no donht •set ii as best be eoiiid. A qu,mi jiy of ol!n-r evidence was a ,j. diiee.l. ol no gnat probable interest i, t (be yvnera! public. In which ii was sh.w t by Mr Taplin. tin: tin- i-.me.-ssio-is de t! i ( had been spokeil of ; In,- M,- [)ah; cemb, cat lug tbe plamlilks sf'dement, and. last, I hough not least, by Mr ( ’arson, mi ■ of the proprietors 0 f j! h j. Waitgna >1 (,/irmui’li\ and a practical printer, who slated that, lie would have charged quadrn a I the usual charges mi t!ie'advertisement in ijnesi ion, unless sunn arrangement b id previously been made to tin contrary* wlni-.-as the present charge was only til * usual charge 1,,;- ;l duidile column. imr (no deb-me Mr Milrov was culled, hut proved nothing h.'ymid'the fact that *"* l he had never heard of siteh a thing as (Is per inch being charged. Mr Taplin was rccalhd, (o prove (hat certain iiisimndimis levelled at him by the previous witness were groundless. Mr Hankins was ended I'm - tin defence hut his explauat ion by no means henciitted Ur- i ause of (he Hoard. The Magistrate in giving jndynnnf. said that the preponderance of evidene ‘ was mi the side of (ho plaintiff, Messrs Dale, Taplin. and (.'arson, the latter c-*r-taiu’y a most independent and impa tiai witness, had given most substantial evidence in favour of (he claim Ininy fa r and reasonable, and as liaviny been eiiiTcd. i'lnn> was nothing to emdne-- t (!nir evi-lenu *. and ju Igim-nt would th- r- - fore be for the aiuoimt claimed wadi costs, ('osts were ass.-ss -d at. If 72s Os. wa ttimv ninmvAV no.win v. r. k. KYAiur. In this adjourned case, a claim for £;"> iTs 4d. whieii tile defendant. resisted, because tlie ground in qmstdon, on which a portion of tin rate was demanded, was not and nev-r had been Ills, judgment wa : given for the whole amount.