MAGISTERIAL.

Patea Mail, Volume IX, Issue 1113, 16 November 1883, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

PATEA—THIS DAY

(Before C. A. Wray, Esq, R.M.) CIV:L CASES.

Potto v Goodwin— -Claim, £7 12s, judgment summons. Defendant did not appear. The plaintiff said that he thought the defendant, who- was a contractor, was in a position to pay the claim. He did not know what the dedcfemlant was earning. His .Worship did not think this sufficient evidence as to the defendant’s ability tp^pay. No order made.

Potto: v Mulholland— Claim, £1 2s Bd, goods supplied. Defendant did not appear, and. judgment was given for plaintiff l»y default with costs, 7s. r , f ArUN v Harper—Claim 8s 6d, Ibis was a case which had been adjourned from a previous Court day. The. plaintiff siiid;tbatbesued (liedefcndnnt ns owner of the p.s. Lyttelton, for goods supplied to bis agent, the purser. The Lyttelton came to Paten and brought freight to him. Ho paid the freight account to the owners of the Lyttelton and was billed by them. The purser came to him and ordered;.goods to bo charged to the vessel, which he snppliedf lie was advised that the ship owners were responsible for anything till paid for. Was not nwnre that vessel was chartered to the captain, lie had not heard the evidence of the defendant taken at Nelson. The Clerk rend the evidence which was to the off-cl that the vessel had been chartered to the Captain, A copy of the agreement was enclosed but Mr Tnplin took exception to ibis ns not being stamped properly. His objection was not, however, upheld by the Court. The Plaintiff continued, that it was the first time he bad beard anything about tliCvVessel being chartered by the Captain. The Court did not think,the plaintiff had any'tdaim upon Mr Harper, and referred to authorities on the subject. There was nothing to show that the purser pledged the owners in purchasing the goods. Plaintiff nonsuited with costs. Chapman v Nathan —Claim £IOO. Mr Barton on behalf of both parlies asked for an adjournment till Friday next, which was granted. Lundberg & Co v Watts —Claim £3. Judgement for plaintiffs.