R. M.'s COURT—GISBOURNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume II, Issue 164, 25 April 1874, Page 2

R. M.'s COURT—GISBOURNE.

[Before W. K. Nesbitt, Esquire, R.M.] Some of the cases heard in this Court on Thursday last were remarkably prolix—too much so for extended publication. There were two, however, that possessed some public interest. <

Owen Cowan sued .Tames Mullooly for the sum of £3O being amount of damages sustained through breach of contract, in which Cowan was to do some fencing by the 30th of September last. It was a crossaction arising out of a claim made on the previous sitting day by Mullooly to recover £24 3s fid for certain ploughing he had done for Cowan,and which was remanded until after the present hearing. There were several witnesses on eit her side. The case, as stated by Mr. Wilson as counsel for plaintiff, was that Mullooly broke the agreement by not placing the timber on the line ; that the last portion of it was not on the ground until October; that his client had to pay men waiting from time to time for stuff to arrive; that he could have finished the work within contract time, had he not been delayed ; and that after the 30th September he had a right to say he would have nothing more to do with it, as the contract had been broken.

Mr. Cuff, for defendant, on the other hand, contended that as the timber was so near to the ground, Cowan consented to work it in the heap, in preference to doing it on the line ; that the,timber was carted on to the line as it was worked ; that Cowan knocked off work because it was wet ; that the period for finishing the work was extended at Cowan’s own request; and that the timber was not placed on the ground until wanted because it was apt to be burnt.

The evidence on either side was very conflicting, and the Magistrate deferred judgment in both eases until Monday next.

The case Cross v. King involves a very nice point of law. Cross agreed to sell to King two horses for £7O, on conditions of payment thereafter to be accepted, if approved of, by plaintiff. As stated by Mr. Cuff, on behalf of the plaintiff, it appears that the defendant agreed to pay the price asked for the horses if plaintiff would accept an equivalent for money, or something convertible into cash, to which Cross assented, and promised to call on King to settle the matter. In the meantime, however, Cross sells the horses to another person for £S'\ and informs King of his having done so. King refuses to give the animals up, and Cross to bring the matter within the jurisdiction of the Court, sues to recover one of them, or its value, which is placed at £5O. Mr. Wilson, for the defence, claimed a nonsuit. He held the sale to be bona fide one, effected and concluded, and characterized the conduct of the plaintiff as very dishonorable if not positively dishonest. The horses were delivered to defendant in virtue of the sale, and he still had possession of them. Mr. Cuff urged his point without effect, that the bargain was not completed, because some ulterior act yet remained to be done by defendant—the providing of something convertible into cash—and to be accepted by the plaintiff. The offer to buy the two horses for £7O was accepted by his client, if something, at that time unperformed, were eventually done by defendant. In the meantime, Cross had a better offer, and as he considered nothing had been entered into which bound him to King, he accepted it. The Bench held the sale to be good, and nonsuited the plaintiff without costs There were several other small debt cases ■d, but- of no general interest.