MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2763, 31 January 1882, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

HMABU-THIB DAY. (Before J, Beswick, Esq,, R;M.) Civil Casks. Judgment was given by default in the following cases :—Hutton v. A. Fisher, claim £ls 2s 10d, costs £2 Is ; Miickay Bros, v., McLeod (Napier), claim £lO 17s 9d, costs £2 8s; T. Collins v, H. Go.odey, claim £1 Ila l)d wages, costs 7s ; Hutton v. O’Meagher (Oamaru), claim £9 7s, costs £ll3s ;E. M. Watkins v, Thompson, claim £8 15s, costs lls ; W, P. Munro (per J. 11. Sutter, his attorney) v. J. Smithson, claim £2O inteiest due on mortgage, costs 19s. H. Cain v. A. Blanchett, claim £8 6s, damages for wrongful conversion of a carcase of pork.

Mr Perry for plaintiff, Mr Hameraley for.defendant, - , . ' ; The plaintiff stated that.early in June last defendant killed a pig for him. Defendant remarked that it was “ the funniest pig he had ever killed in Timaru," and asked as a sort of favor to be allowed to cure it, promising to make df it* “as nice bacon as ever you eat,” and to smoke the hams. It was agreed that defendant should cure the pig, and after killing it he cut it up and .saltpd sit, promising to return in a fe!>y 'days to; silt it/ again./> Hd did not return for a fortnight, although sent for several times in the interval. Plaintiff at last sent word that* if defendant did not come up to complete the cure of the meat he should send his cart to take it to his own place to cure. Next day defendant’s cart came and took the meat away. .It y tyas weighed before going away and to be 1661bJ. : Some time' after plaintiff met defendant, and the latter said the bacon was as sweet as a nut, and lie would bring it back 500f1.,. He -never brought it back, and plaintiff sent him a bill for it at Is per lb, and threatened to summon him if he did not either return the bacon or pay for it. Defendant held since ascertained that 6d per lb would be ; a fair price for it. . To Mr Hamersley—Did not tell Blanchett to take it away because it was so bad. that he was afraid it would breed a fever in the house, but he considered it, a sin'to allow the meat to go to waste, he would have paid him'his charge for killing, 4s, and also his charge for curing : thepig. :i _ . M. Leary, plaintiff's gardener, gave corroborative evidence respecting the bargain to cure, the messages to ; defen* dant, and the taking away of the meat. This concluding plaintiff’s case, Mr Hamersley asked for a nonsuit on the ground that an action for wrongful conversion could not be maintained because defendant had a lien upon the meat for work done upon it, but his Worship declined to grant the nonsuit, because no claim had been made for the value of the work done.

Mr Hamersley then called Mrs Blanchett, who stated that Captain Gain came to her and said he had some pork that was going bad and he was afraid of it causing fever, and asked her to tell her husband to fetch it. Her husband said he would have nothing to do with it, and Captain Cain' coming again she sent for it herself. When it came about half of jt was bad. Captain Cain said they were to send for it; there were some parts good that they could make use of. i

In reply to Mr Perry witness stated that she had used some of the. bacon, other parts being very bad. Mr Kid well, butcher, was called by by Mr Hamersley to prove the price of porb in June last. Wholesale,'bacon pork was worth 3£d per lb. His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for £2 11s 4d, being at the rate of 4d per lb for the pork, less 4s, the charge .for killing. He; would allow nothing for the work done in curing, Phoenix Brewery Company v. H. Smith, claim £25 19s, for G lihds ale supplied to the Waimate Working Men’s Club. .

Mr Hamersley, appealed for the plaintiffs. Henry Mitchell, clerk to plaintiffs, proved the receipt of orders for the beer, and of a promissory note for £l7 6s, signed by defendant, which was dishonored.

Defendant denied his liability. He only signed the promissory note to oblige the secretary of the Club ; he knew it was in order to get more beer, but he did not intend to render himself liable. He was not a member of the Club when he signed the note, and if he signed it as a trustee it was because he could not read, and, was told,it was all right. He only signed it “as a matter 6f form.”

In argument Mr Hamersley said the signing of the bill in payment for the beer, was sufficient proof of defendant’s membership. Without the bill he could not have sued the defendant for the goods delivered, he admitted, but by signing it defendant had rendered himself a party to the whole transaction. , .. : , i Defendant threw himself “on the mercy of the Court.” He had no witnesses, being unable to bring them fromWaimate,

His Worship said he was very sorry to have to record judgment against defendant, but he had. made himself responsible by signing the bill. It 1 was onfc of. those cases in which a man did a foolish thing “as a matter of;, form,” and he would unfortunately have to pay for it.