RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Volume III, Issue 38, 3 February 1864, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

V Monday; IsT,;lßs^ ? J^ M (Before M. Pride, Es^^ R.J^) '^ H DRTJ>TKE>7fE3B;— r^eyeu personsf,"were fined H for being intoxicated in the street. . K Heu?i>:& THEMSEtyES, to the Potatoes, 8 — S. iSinton and J:|;Qreig yrere charged byß Thomas Fisher, a^farmer atjiyal Bush, with B stealing a quantii^ofcjpp^atoea. Tlie prose- S cutor- stated, that ;liavuig~ occasion to rise a B ljjtylp .after" daylight on the" previous moraing, H he found the two prisoners helping themselves B to the potatoes in his garden. Pne of the B men ran away when ho saw pposecutop j |b?ij B the otHer man added insult ' to larceny" hj B assaulting prosecutor. 'One of the prisoners B stating ho could prove an alibi, the Bench B granted a remand to Thursday. • ' . B Assaxtit with I>tce> t t. — Hugh ]Vl'lntosb,B charged with assaulting -one filiza Connelly B with intent to oommiti.a rape, was, on th«B application of My. 'Havv6y,'who appeared forH tlio pvoscQiitriXi remanded to Friday, a3 s'' c ß was too ill to appear. Bail for tho prisoncr'iß appsamnco in Jus" own rccogniwmitt of £lisH| and two aurctios of £75 cucli, Ma? taken ;bjrw tko Bonclt . ' ' S ' , Ctvii Casbs, ; , m MatHESOX ASD GrEACIE V "VVatKINS *&& Taylob.— £4l 16s. 9d. Yerdiot by defaulfW Lasche^ v'Bra^.— £2l 17b. 7(lj for goodS sold, ; Ye'rdict for plaintiff, -* ' ' < >wMaxkksox and Co. v JtßM3tfil*»-r-JC4OIO® Verdict for plaintiff t , b ,• J3 MonkmXx v LAMO3f»<— £39 Us,, foV supplied; YeVdict foi 1 plaintiffi ' B TOOHBS A>'D CO, V SUlMTAlf.— is33 ?s-. 3«g Verdict for plftintifiFr- ... » Jm , Hwi* a>'d Co» v Cambhok.— ifißlj fcr go«W soUt. Verdjci foy phiinliiF. , JR / SQAsajROTlf v W'KaT,— £9B. Verdict IB pon^cuti ' . ,jbk OAip«ii"A2aj 1 Co; v iiosai~*od 95., >m goodg fioW, ' Yerdiet' for dofon^witi ,JS TA^JiOH AS» ASQfKSB V, »AVXS,— JSB3 )« oil o,' dUunoNd bUi,' , Yeydict ' for pJUntiff J| Ki'sssi-i* v. HOESUC»i<f«£iB .loi> for Rjg vices yejideircd in draw Hug pbuu' aud «p«™ s pfttierte for the «Q»atrttctiqa of. ft otlfJ aB B6looU on defendant's tlio P l^»^' Hotol. -My» S.outli appearad for tU« P^flK K My, Hai-Voy for tUo 'dofendimt. Fbintfw ovi4e»c«? was to the effect that hopttgi^ed,™^ defc»d»t«t lo cUwgc the t'cgulaif jnrofeuwW cotnmjasioa oa Uta eyj)on«Q of, tho cPfietwDJg tha bowling gAlCct, which tf itH joi»e adtliwsm itoms, tt}a.<fc tUe amount Iw <&ftrgcd. I ? ««^ jintj ou the QQotvttf J'.' dohi«d $«*t w>?,*^B. v inwtefttat ntim fa& beqjipefttcrMi^ and betli he a»d hu itt«aa3fli'» -Sir. ww aw «TiA«n6« t)>:i«i plamtitf 1 agnctl wrkfciffiS, Tk K^ali gft«*v««wß| the da&adAai „ . ..„■

,^l (US tauied in conseqiuenee" of * ffifr nQn-deHrery -f» o f a quantity of oats purchased i by •plaintiff. lajhe verdid; given was for the plaintiff proate to the difference of the market lTfi ac °f *ke oats at the tune he concluded the -■purchase with defendant and their value at the fotne delivery was refused. I Tuesday, Ffb. 2, 1864 I GrvTx ( Oases. - ; - ' I Basstian v. Howeiii. I Mr- South for' plaintiff ; Mr. Macdonald for j Ijlie defendant. 1 jji action to recover £85, damages alleged Ito have been sustained by misrepresentation 1„f thY defendant, Tinder the circumstances l^ef^ledby the plaintiff's' evidence as follows. I Jfr.Bastiari, a funholderatDunrobin, in the ■ province of Southland; stated that in Jfoveni■ter last ho was arranging for the sale of his l TU n and sheep. He had placed the run for ; ■ gale in the hands of Mr. Low at Bivertori. I *hen in consequence of a rumor, which had ' ■ arisen that his sheep were affected with^scab,' Jjie had to withdraw the run; from sale. ■ The ! 1 rumor arose from a report sent by defendant ■ (who was' a neighboring runholder), to Mr. ■ Fielder, sheep inspector, to the effect that* ■ plaintiff's sheep were scabby. In consequence I of the report he had to take Mr.; Fielder up to I the station, which was about 50 miles from I Riverton ; and to gather all the sheep on the- ■ run, when it was shewn by examination of the » ?| inspector that title entire flock, some; seven ; I thousand, were quite free from scab. ; About; i I that time he had' arranged for; going ixj Tas-? Ijnania on important business; and in *con- ; ;| sequence of • the detention by the rumor. ■ and the. subsequent proceedings he had : I incurred a number of expenses. Estimating all I those expenses with those incurred in gather-; I ing the sheep, they would amount to the sum Ile claimed as damages. He had a subsequent. I conversation with defendant on the subject of I the report he; had made (to Mr: .Fielder as to I the plaintiff's- sheep being scabby, when de-. I fendant' stated ie had a right to make such a I report" to the Inspector. I ByMri Ma"cd6nald.— Mr. Stevens had a run " I adjoining plaintiff and defendant's run. 'Ho. I had sold some sheep to a butcher at Riverton,; I irliich had mixed with defendant's sheep. He I tras in Tasmania when , he heard the rumour,, I and found it necessary to return in conseI quence, as he had offered the run for sale I through Mr. Ijow. He could not coinmuniI cate with his Manager, as he, was. too anxious I about the matter. He went up to the station with Mr .Fielder to satisfy himself. George Win! Fielder^ Inspector r of Sheep [ for the Province pf Southland,' produced' the communication received from '• defendant in Deceinber;last,' as follows .:— "BaisyrNbV. 1 23. Mr. Fielder,- Sir, — I have every reason ;to believe that Mr. Basstian's sheep are scabby.' There is. a man shearing here for me that has been at •' work *on Basstian's station ! about three' mdnths. He says he spoke; i to .-> the manager, heidid not deny it; but,l : think it wrong ■ of Basstian not ' to : ■ give information of it. Signed, John Howell." On the the way -up to plaintiff's '.< station they called at defendant's /station^ Jwhen ; defendant indicated a particular flock of plaintiff's sheep he wished to .have; mustered,. as it was in that flock he, believed the scabby sheep were, ■ The result of the muster and examination satisfied him the sheep were entirely ; free from. scab. He had examined plaintiff's station previously, and had always been satisfied it was a clean station. There were no grounds for the report of defendant, which witness had examined. .: By Mr.' Macdonald.— The Sheep Ordinance: repuired him to go and inspect, any sheep,, when he received a written notice such as that received from defendant. , ; ■ . . By Mr. South.— From his examination of the sheep* ;jhe would not reasonally have supposed there was any ground for sending such a written notice to the Inspector. By the Bench.— Since his appoinsment, he i: i received verbal communications that sheep t.ee diseased, and on going to inspect, found :bay were not so— -that was from the owner of the sheep, in accordance with a clause in the Ordinance.., The communication from defendant, was the first he has received from a person not the owner, regarding sheep alleged to be scabby. There was a possibility •jf the sheep being scabby oil the date referred to by the defendant, and yet clean when he saw r'them. : It might arise from the fact of the sheep having been carefully dipped and dressed.y There was no. appearance of the sheep having been subjected to such an operation when hesaw them. , John Hamilton, merchant of Invcr car gill, gave corroborative evidence of plaintiff's detection: in 'going to Tasmania JilQug with witness, in conseqxjcnxje of hearing the rijmour of his sheep being scabby. Thomas Low, of Kiverton, gave evidence of havihg.been, as agent for a gentleman near Dunedin, in treaty with plaintiff for the purchase ; -of ;his run of Dunrobin. When plaintiff wished to withdi'aw his station from sale (in consequence of: the rumour), witness, on, the part; of his principal, objected to it. He endeavored to persuade plaintiff to >wait until his principal saw the sheep and. judged for himself ; but plaintiff would not, and withdrew the run from sale.; After witness ; heard that the run was . perfectly clean, witness wished to treat again for the purchase of the run, but plaintiff did not seem anxious for the Bale, alleging as a reason that a good deal of time had elapsed, and he had been disarranged in his plans altogether. He said that had he not been detained he.. (witness) would have had the. run. at his offer. ,Witriess i at that time was quite willing to purchase the rim -then at the same; price as he had previously offered for it. Mr; Macdonald submitted, ' preliminarily, fhjif the plaintiff miist be non-suitacl, inasmuch as the law held there could be no misrepresentation, unless it was shown that 'the false representation was made to the plaintiff himself, and that he; acting on it,- hadiincurred the damages claimed .by the action. Mr. South 'having made some remarks in support of the , allegation that the misrepresentation was made wilfully, and for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff,' , ,Tlio>Bencli decided; to heap the evidence for the defendant. '. John Howell, the defendant., vv^ a on Jacob's Bivey, g^TO: eyidence-tid tlie. following effect:— When he wrote "the letter to Mr, Fielder, ho did so from what ho heard from a man who- had been working: $n the #un. • He believed— looking ,at the Sheep Ordinance-— that ho was ;< boun& ttf 'inkke a report of tlio peiultv. :*pf JJSO. At that/time some/ tif plaliiUff's shcephadgot mixed with the sheep on defenitant's.rvtn, When plaintiff .spoke,, to lilm aljovit setoding the import, he! said.it tfptUa. tittbr haTP:beeaa $wttej of c^Urtcsyvtq speak toBiM bel^te .^fit^ilio i'egoit, .: ' "■'.. "< ' ; BWne.isG gftvo Jiim- tiw infwßiation, Bie-ioid s aejfop.d«int before, fi|co>' sis MttxQimAlXQh mtmWi eUeeti •tfore sp^lbvi: He Kftd kuown jjjfltfUqftvi: ruiiv for tfctoC yesurs j . .MtJUid no I Biij&rtM^ etkadWißg tlie am of :ilie t&im, : aJurill^ those t)m& f$!&l U^;X»s^Stov UaVer i telttwnl tlta run wjis Wfeetiy ole4a. When 1 umSxA tUe run Svaa, cleiJli : BMd||B'; „,tluttj, tluttj jflM c atty gtutomeat ■'■mm\ irif^ttWTrßhcepwcya aci^by, Ho'^dttldswc&r' &e»mrMwre?t#edeo, .THo JnepMofe^' t«nti«mvm »Qt to his caliocl to m l»e|io¥«4 that Biftinars sheop wcv«? scabby;f IMjii th? ?»«» w¥?Wi K« IM no old grudge iawn§ti:tti(rimjffi . / : ; M ■■■■•■■■ --v

port" which was '7sbr' r ca|c^at^d:;''ito>'i]fljure :i: fctie reputation of ~&i sHdepUrun-^whetheriit was clean or unclean. He contended that all the evidence showed that . the very scant infprmation; received by the defendant = could not justify him in sending such a report ; but that on the contrary it showed, clearly the mala fides of the defendant ; iii sending a report\vithout - having any grounds for bis representation, which' was, therefore, false, and made for the; purpose of injuring^tlier plaintiff. ; The JSencli, jn deciding on the.case, y th6ught the intention of the 'defendant in sending the oreport was a bpria fide one. The defendant, on receiving the information of the plaintiff's sheep "being scabby," was only acting on- the "reasonable supposition"- referred to by the Sheep m sending the report to the Inspector. "'uTJaider the circumsfcahees the Tierdict was therefore for the defendant. ■ ; Horton v Smith.'—^-Mr-South for plaintiff. Mr. Harvey ;for the defendant., .An action, to recover the balance of an account for cutting a quantify of firewood, the dispute arising from the , fact .that the. defendant alleged the wood ' was nbt.cut according to agreement l The verdict ■was for the' plaintiff, estimating' tlie" wood cutat 6s. 6d.;; per cord, instead- of; Bs. as agreed on. - '■'■■......:......■ . . ....... I WILKIKSON ;T. CAIPER, AND, BEAVEN. — Mr. ; Weston appeared for, the.plaintiff^ Mr. ., Macdonald ■; for ;the -. defendant. ; An ■'; ; action ' to recover ' for wages alleged to be' dxie by the. ! estate" of E>. Gr.;H6skiris., of \vhiehthe defend-; ants were the trustees; Plaintiff gave evidence of having been in the service of. Mr.. . Hoskins as cook- until the, ampiint he sued for was due. 'Subsequent to. the assignment ; of Hoskins' estate, plaintiff saw Mr.BeaTen,- who admitted ; the ' debtjTand : stated that; he would get his wages in full; but he would have to take them by dividends,, as the money. was taken in the public house. Plaintiff believed other servants' wages had. to be paid in full. , Mr. Macdonald submitted that the law of England, by which servants claimed their wages as pi*ef j ferential creditors in ; an 'insolvent' estate, was not in operation in^ this colony. He called Mr. Beaven, one of the ., trustees, who denied that either he or Mr. JJCalder had ever told plaintiff he should be paid his wages in full. He told plaintiff that the servants would be paid in the same proportion as the other creditors. Mr. Calder, the other trustee, also denied that he had even promised plaintiff his -wages should be paid in . full. The Bench gave a, -verdict for the defendants. Sanders t Cal/DEb and Co.— Mr. Weston appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr. Macdonald for the defendants. An action to recover £50 Is. alleged to be due for the preparation of certain plans and specifications for premises belonging to;the defendants, in Tay-street, Invercargill. Defendants' plea was, that plaintiff had not properly performed the work agreed on ; also, that he had in his capacity of superintendent !of the building of the premises, passed imperfect work. The preliminary evidence of the plaintiff was only taken when the case had to be adjourned, in consequence of the lateness' of the hour.