RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume III, Issue 436, 13 December 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Gisborne, Tuesday, December 12, 1876. (Before W. K. Nesbitt, Esq., R.M.) Mclntosh v. J. Hay. Debt £141257d —Noappearauceofdefendant. Plaintiff having proved his claim, judgment was recorded for full amount with costs. Mullooly v. Blackstock. Judgment summons. Mr Wilson for the plaintiff, accepted judgment for amount to be paid iu two instalments of one month each. Graham v. Devery and Kilburn. Claim £ Adjourned to next Court day. Tucker v. Mclntosh. Claim £l2, damages alleged to have been sustained in consequence of wrongful conversion of one red bullock. Mr Rogan for plaintiff; Mr Wilson for defendant. W. H. Tucker, sworn, stated : That he had sold a red and white spotted, untamed bullock to defendant for £6, ou the chance of getting him ; but. about ajnonth after he (plaintiff) learned that defendant had taken another animal, which was of greater value.

W- Mill, sworn, deposed to knowing the animal in question. He helped to drive it to defendant’s stockyard. He did not know’ what became of it after that. Mclntosh told him he had bought it from Mr Tucker. They had no difficulty in getting it into the.yard. Frederick Dufaur, sworn, deposed: I was present during a conversation between plaintiff and defendant about a bullock. It was described as a wild one, which would have to be shot ; they each seemed to be well acquainted with it, and ultimately £6 was agreed to be paid for it, whether defendant could catch it or not. For the defence.

L. Mclntosh deposed : In May last, I had a conversation with the plaintiff, about the purchase of a bullock, but as the price (£7 10s) was too high, I did not buy it. Some tUFce mouths after this, plaintiff again spoke to me on the subject, saying that the animal was wild, and I agreed to give him £6 for tho chance of getting it. It was to pay the money whether I succeeded in getting him or not. Plaintiff described the bullock as “red, rather thick about the horns, with a strawberry streak on the flank.” The animal is the same as that described by witness Mill. It was not a strawberry poley bull. By Mr Rogan: I helped to drive the bullock to the slaughter yard, with other cattle, we had notmuch trouble in driving him.

By the Court: I do not know of any other similar bullock belonging to plaintiff. C. Anderson deposed to knowing the animal taken by defendant, and said he had no doubt it was the one sold by plaintiff. The Court held that there had evidently been a mistake on the part of the defendant in assuming that the bullock alluded to by the plaintiff in his first conversation had formed the subject of the agreement subsequently, but thought the plaintiff should have been more explicit in describing the animal. Judgment would, therefore, be given for £3 Us 3d paid into Court with costs £1 Is.

[This is the judgment as recorded ; but the impression in the Court was that the Magistrate's finding was in favor of costs £1 Is for defendant.]