MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2670, 11 October 1881, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMARU—YESTERDAY [Before R. Beetham, Esq., R.M. LARCENY AS A BAILEE. The case against John King, for fraudulent conversion of goods, was proceeded witli yesterday afternoon, the principal evidence for the prosecution, in addition to that already published by us being that of Mr Bell who sold the oats to King in the first instance. Ho stated that he sold 100 bushels of oats to King in bags supposed to contain four bushels each, but he could not say whether he got 250 bags or not.

The accused made a statement in defence that he sold the oats purchased from Bell to Peacock and Geaney, but never gave them possession in any way. The sacks belonged to him and he considered he was entitled to hold a portion of the oats as against the sacks taken away and not returned, They had also purchased chaff from him, the account of which was owing, and the whole account for feed amounted to £B4 14s Id as against £75, the value of the oats, without reckoning charges at all. The Magistrate reserved his decision till Friday. THIS DAY. HORSE STEALING. Chari es Baker and Joseph Capslick were brought up on a further charge of having stolen a mare and a gelding and a quantity of harness of the total value of £GO, the property of William Dennison, Mr White appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Hamersley appeared on behalf of the accused. On the application of Mr White, who stated that his, witnesses-were not all in attendance, the case was adjourned until to-morrow. CIVIL CASES. Armitage v; Gosling -r- Claim for dainages'for breach of agreement. This case had been adjourned fbr argument, and Mr Hamersley now applied that plaintiff should be nonsuited on the ground that ho was not the actual sufferer by anything that might have been done by his client, plaintiff acting merely in the capacity of agent or manager for his brother. Mr Reid replied that Mr Hamefslcy’s contention would hold good in a case of breach of contract, but not in a case of facts such as this. There was no contract between the parties ; it was a case of misrepresentation on the part of defendant, and the question of damages arose out of such misrepresentation. Defendant had said he had feed for the sheep that plaintiff wanted pasture for, but he had not kept them as ho had undertaken to do, and plaintiff had had to remove them to his own paddocks, being unable to procure feed elsewhere, thus doing great damage to the young grass, which had just.been laid down. The Bench reserved their decision.

Johnson y. Campbell—Claim £l3 10s, value of a bullock alleged to be detained by defendant. Mr Hamersley for plaintiff, Mr White for defendant.

Charles Johnson, butcher, Timaru, deposed that he bought a mob of cattle from defendant in August last. He took delivery of them, putting four into his yard and three into a paddock. The next day the three got awaj and he applied to Campbell to know if they had gone back. He ultimately got two of them back from him and now claimed for the value of the third, which he alleged defendant had wrongfully detained. Wm. Webster stated that he had been sent by last witness to defendant’s place for the three head of cattle. He saw them in his paddock and brought two of them away. Mr Campbell detained the other. He was sure it was one of the three.

H. Hawkins deposed that he saw Johnson drive a mob of cattle past his place and that he took notice of them. Next day be saw tbr.ee of them go back again. He told Johnson. John Campbell, the 'defendant, stated that he was a farmer at the Pareora. In August last he sold seven head of cattle to Johnson who took them away. Two of them returned a few days afterwards and he let them into the paddock. Webster came for them. He pointed out the two to him but he was taking the wrong two and witness had to help him to get the proper two. He never saw the third bullock since Johnson took it away. Edward Newburn, farm servant to defendant, gave evidence as to bis having counted the cattle both before and after the sale to Johnson. Mr Hamersley elected to teke a nonsuit, which was accordingly entered. Judgment was given for plaintiffs by default in the following cases ; Sutter v. Shaw, claim £37 Gs Id ; Newell v, Reid, claim 14s. Hood and Newman v. Ellis and Son, claim £l4 3s Gd. Mr Reid for plaintiff, Mr Hamersley for defendants. This case was adjourned by mutual consent till the 18th inst. I’KOTECTIOX OKUJiK, A protection order was granted, on the application of Mr Hamersley, to Christina McDonald. This concluded the business and the Court adjourned.