CARLYLE R.M. COURT.

Patea Mail, Volume VI, Issue 510, 21 April 1880, Page 3

CARLYLE R.M. COURT.

Tuesday, before Captain Wray. CIVIL CLAIMS. Too Much in Debt. —Daniel Hurley, of Woodville, had obtained a judgment against Charles Litchwark for £4 17s, ami now applied for a judgment summons. He had allowed the defendant to pay any amount he could since that judgment in January, but got nothing. Defendant had been earning 8s a day in the bush, and if he paid 5s a week the plaintiff would be satisfied. Defendant said he had been working at Robson’s sawmill part of the time, and has been working there for 8s a day since February 12th. He has a wife and six children, and ho could barely maintain them. Is willing to pay if he could. Defendant had been sued at Waverlcy and other places, but had not paid any of those debts. The Magistrate ordered him to pay £1 a month ; in default to be imprisoned 14 days. DISPUTED CARTAGE OF GOODS. ■Peculiab Cask. Delaney v. Dale was a claim for £lB, on account of cartage of goods held by an agent. The circumstances were peculiar. is a carrier at Waverlcy, and Mr W. Dale, is an auctioneer and storekeeper at Carlyle. Mr Fitzberbert appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Burnett for defendant. The solicitors agreed to a statement of facts in the following form : In the month of February, Mr Arthur despatched two loads of goods from Wanganui to Patea, which were taken by rail to Kai Iwi, and were from there to be taken to Patea by Mahaffcy and Bourne, carriers. The station-master at Kai Iwi gave the goods to plaintiff (Delaney), who took them to Patea, and on Mr Arthur’s refusal to pay £lB, the amount claimed by Delaney for carriage, the latter put them in charge of defendant (Dale), with instructions not to hand them over to Mr Arthur without payment of the charge for freight. Mr Arthur, by his agent Mr Williams, paid the £lB, giving at the time to Mr Dale the notice annexed hereto. [Please take notice that I object to your handing over to Mr John Delaney the sum of £lB paid by Mr Win. Williams on my account for cartage, and I hereby agree to become responsible to you for any expenses you may bo put to in detaining the money in accordance with this notice.] Mr Dale then wrote to th« plaintiff the letter which is annexed hereto. [The letter informed plaintiff that the money had been paid under protest, and the goods delivered to Mr Arthur.] The plaintiff is now suing the defendant for the £lB received on plaintiff’s account by defendant. It is admitted that the station-master at Kai Iwi had no express authority from Mr Arthur to employ plaintiff to take the goods from Kai Iwi to Patea. The Magistrate, after hearing argument by counsel, gave judgment ns follows : In this case the question to be decided by the Court is whether the defendant, acting as agent for his principal, Delaney, and having received payment of freight for certain goods deposited with him, which he was instructed to hold, was justified in retaining the money paid to him by the consignee, as. having, by delivery of the goods, waived the lieu which the plaintiff had as carrier. It appears to the Court that as soon as the defendant (Dale) received the money, he was bound to pay it over to the plaintiff, mid had no right to detain it. In Addison’s “Law of Contracts,” 7th edition, page 67, “ The agent having received the money on behalf of the principal, and for his use, is accountable to the latter for it. The maxim respondeat superior therefore applies ; and the agent, whether he has paid over the money, or whether he has not, is answer-' able to the principal alone.” As to the merits in the matter of the carriage of the goods, the consignee has his remedy against Delaney. Judgment will be for the plaintiff for tbe amount claimed, and costs. The costs were £4 18s.