RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume III, Issue 242, 27 January 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Gisborne, Tuesday, January 26, 1875. [Before W. K. Nesbitt, Esq., B.M.] HALE V. MULLOOLY. Judgment was delivered in this case, which was adjourned from last Tuesday for further evidence. Defendant to pay 19s each party paying their own costs. CARROL V. HORI POTOTO. Defendant was charged by complainant with having stolen some fruit from his orchard, to the value of one shilling. Fined 4s. CONNOB V. CONNOR. —ASSAULT. Defendant fined £3 and costs, £1 to go to complainant, LIVINGSTONE V. HILL. Defendant was charged with having used abusive language to the complainant on the Ist January. Bound over in his own recognizances for £lO to keep the peace towards the complainant for six months. COOPER V. LLOYD. Claim £26 9s damages sustained by reason of the short delivery of two bags of potatoes from the steamer Rangatira. Defendant paid £1 19s into Court. Plaintiff, sworn states : The potatoes were ashleaf kidneys. The short weight was 3J cwt. they were worth 32s a ewt. in Wi llington, I could have sold their produce at 4d per lb. Mr. Cuff for the defendant raised an objection in law, as the line of defence pursued by his learned friend Mr. Wilson (for the plaintiff) was leading up to a claim for consequential damages. He (Mr. Cuff) held that such claim could not be sustained. Mr. Wilson also quoted authorities in support of bis view, and took exception to Mr. Cuff’s argument. The Court would wish the case to proceed. Plaintiff then pursued: The produce of the other seed was worth £34 a ton. The crop yielded 3 tons to the acre. By Mr. Cuff: My brother bought the potatoes for me in Wellington and gave 32s a ewt. for them. I have dug two bags of the crop, the price of ordinary potatoes was from 12s to 14s a cwt. I have not sold any of the potatoes. I believe I could get £34 a ton for the potatoes for seed. John O’Meara, called, corroborated plaintiff’s statement, and although, he considered potatoes a speculative crop, he thought plaintiff had sustained a loss of about two acres of potatoes at from 3d to 4d per lb. John Heal, and John Breingan were called as rebutting witnesses, and counsel addressed the Court at some length on various points of law. The Bench held that consequenlial damages had been sustained and gave judgment for £2O and costs. Mr. Cuff gave notice of appeal. TAMIHANA V. O’MEARA. Claim £4 balance of contract. And O’meara v. Tamihana. ’ Claim £B, for breach of contract. These cases were heard together. Tamihana, sworn stated: That he was engaged by O’Meara to do a certain quantity of work for £l. I finished the work, and have not been paid. By Mr. O’Meara : I have received £1 on account. I did not agree to put the ground in a state fit for ploughing. William Waters, stated that he was present when an arrangement was made between plaintiff and defendant. They were to finish clearing the ground for the plough for £4. Jno. Bartlett deposed to having interpreted the agreement between O’Meara and Tamihana and others. He was to give them £4 to clear the ground. Nothing was said about ploughing. Judgment for plaintiff 10s and costs of Court. HENI TE WHAIAO V. K All AU BIA. —ASSAULT.

The charge was fully sustained, and the defendant mulcted in a fine of £5, £2 to be given to the complainant.