Untitled

Southland Times, Volume 2, Issue 60, 5 June 1863, Page 2

Thursday, 4th June. Drunkenness. - - AVilliam Preston was charged with being drunk in Dee-street on the 3rd June. Fined 10s. Samuel AVard, foi the same offence, was fined los. Civil Cases. Jack v Buttner and llallenstein. —Nu appearance. Case dismissed. Harrison v Cameron. Settled out of court. Yule and Co. v Jones. —No appearance. Case dismissed. Preston v Hall. —Claim for the cost of 70 piles delivered by plaintiff to defendant, as per rgreement. Plea, not indebted. AVilliam Preston deposed that defendant came to him on the evening of last Sunday week, and arrced with plain 1 iff to deliver 70 piles on some land adjoining the Royal Hotel. After delivery according to agreement, plaintiff applied for payment to defendant, who refused to pay for them, saying they had not been delivered in the right place. By the defendant : I said I would try to deliver 20 piles on Monday, 20 on Tuesday, and the remainder on AVednesday. There was no man on the ground to receive them from me on delivery. I actually delivered, by a carter employed by me, 20 piles on Monday, 20 on Tuesday, 17 on Wednesday, and the remainder on Thursday. By the Court: I did deliver the piles on the ground where defendant told me to do so. He did not complain to me of their not having been all delivered on Wednesday, till I went to ask him for the money; then he said he had not received them. Peter Brown and AVilliam Blake confirmed the above evidence. In defence, AVilliam Hall deposed that plaintiff agreed to de-

liver to him 20 piles on Monday, 20 on Tuesday, and the rest oh Wednesday. In consequence of not finding the piles on the ground on Wednesday, had been obliged to obtain piles from another party at 3d per pile additional cost ; being under a penalty of £5 a day, if a certain job requiring the piles were not completed at a specified time. On Saturday, when plaintiff applied for £5 4s, had not seen the piles in question, till informed by the landlord of the Royal Hotel of their being on a piece of enclosed ground about fifty yards from where they should have been delivered. Verdict for plaintiff, with costs. Wilson & Co. v Moffatt.— Action for the recovery of certain boards consigned to the plaintiff, per Alarm, and alleged to be in possession of the defendant. Mr South appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr McDonald for the defendant. Henry Leary deposed that he was the business manager for Messrs. Wilson and Co., in Invercargill. Certain boards were consigned to thera from Melbourne, per Alarm, as proved by the bill of lading pro- , dnced. When rafted to the beach, a certain nutnberwerefoundwanting. Went to Mr M of- | fatt's, who had similar timber consigned to him per Frederick, and showed witness his bill of lading. Went with Mr Moffatt to his yard, and counted there with, him a number of boards exceeding his expected number. The deficiency of boards per Frederick was to be supplied by the Fair Tasmanian. On claiming the surplus boards from Mr. Moffat, to make up Messrs. Wilson's right number, Mr. Moffat declined giving them up, alleging that they had already been claimed by a Mr Mackay. Mr Moffatt stated that if he had more than his number he would make it all right aiterwards with Messrs Wilson and Co. By the Court: I have no doubt the surplus boards that Mr Moffatt had above his right number were those wanting to supply the deficiency in Messrs Wilson and Co.'s number. I could not positively identify them, as they were nearly all alike, and were being rafted at the same time from the Alarm and the Frederick. Mr Moffatt's boards were of the same description as Messrs Wilson and Co.'s, having the same black mark, and from the same timber-yard in Melbourne. Mr Gracie coiroborted the preceding evidence. The Court decided that, in this case, there was no evidence, to identify the boards in question as the property of plaintiff, nor even to prove that they had been delivered by the Alarm to the defendant. Verdict for the defendant with costs, ISs.