R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 183, 15 July 1884, Page 2

R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

THIS DAY. (Before J. Booth, Esq., R.M.) Parnell <fc Boylan v. P. E. Richardson. Claim £2 10s. 6d. for goods sold. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for the plaintiff with costs 12s. Ward & Kenny v. W. Cooper. Claim £3O Is. 6d. on a dishonored promissory note. No appearance of defendant. Judgment by default for the amount, with costs £3 12s. Common, Shelton & Co, v. R. Turnbull. Claim £7 9s. lOd. No appearance of defendant. Judgment by default for the amount. Costs, £1 16s. 6d. Parnell & Boylan v. S. Goldsmith. Claim £2 19s for goods. No appearance of defendant. Judgment by default for the amount, with costs £1 4s. Parnell & Boylan v. J. Brown. Claim £4 3s. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff with costs. H. Trimmer v. Henri Ruru. Claim £49 Bs. 6d. on a judgment summons. Mr. Rees appeared for the defendant, and on the plaintiff’s application the case was adjourned until the 12th of August. J. Rosie v. A. W. Gould. No appearance of defendant. Adjourned for three weeks at the request of plaintiff. Teat anl Fryer v. F, Carder. Claim Ll 6 2s. lid. Mr. Rees for plaintiffs and Mr. Finn for defendant. Mr. Rees explained that this was a claim for goods sold and supplied by the plaintiffs to one Captain Miller, of a certain schooner, the Lucy James, of which the defendant was owner, and who, it was alleged, had promised to pay for the goods. W. A. Fryer, one of the plaintiffs, deposed that Captain Miller, of the Lucy James, of which the defendant was owner, had received goods from him, and had paid LlO on account of them, and defendant had promised to pay the balance. The defendant deposed that Miller was not in his employment, but was working on thirds. Promised to pay the plaintiffs L2 which was due to them by Miller, but he paid it himself. Did not tell Mr. Fryer if he would supply the schooner with further goods he would pay him for the amount due by Miller. Miller had informed him that ho could not get further credit from plaintiffs. Went and saw plaintiffs after that to pay the L2, and not about the matter of credit.

Mr. Finn submitted that the plaintiffs should be non-suited, on the grounds of their being no proof of the delivery of the goods in question, and there was no partnership between Miller and the defendant.

Mr. Rees submitted that the liability of the defendant was clearly proved by the law itself. Every captain held an exceptional position, and always ordered the requirements of his ship, the proprietors had nothing to do with him, but were responsible for the goods obtained by him. If the plaintiffs had sued Miller and lost, they could not then recover for the present defendant.

His Worship said he would refuse the application for a nonsuit, because according to the general custom of trade, the goods were delivered. The evidence was sufficient to allow him to refuse the nonsuit.

Mr. Finn would ask for leave to appeal, on the grounds of his Worship having no jurisdiction, and of the non-delivery, and several other grounds. A gross injustice had been done. The Supreme Court would decide in their favor.

Mr. Rees contended that there was no ground of appeal. The question of jurisdiction had been waived by the other side. His Worship had no right to send the case to a higher Court, unless he was certain there were substantial grounds to go on. His Worship thought there was not a good case, sufficient to send it to a higher Court. He would refuse the appeal.