RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Volume I, Issue 38, 27 August 1864, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thttbsdat, 25th Attq-ust. (Before H. M'Culloch, Esq., B:M.) Dbttkkenness.-—James Milne, for this offence, , in Conon- street, on the 24-th instant, was fined ss. Breach of Dog- Nttisaxcb Obdinakce. — Three parties were charged with being in posses- . sion of unregistered dogs, contrary to the provisions of the Ordinance. The first case was dismissed, the owner having registered the dog since receipt of summons. The second case was, sustained, and the owner fined 10s, and ss. 6d. costs. The third case was dismissed, the alleged owner pleading that the.dog belonged to 'his wife t from whom he was separated, and to whom he allowed maintenance., . - t . . CrviL Cases. , ' BuTmnEß AND ANOTHEB V. RTIiET.—Claim for £5 Is. 10d., for goods sold and delivered. • No defence. Verdict for plaintiff, with costs. Hewitt and Co: t. .M'Rae.—Claim for; £12 Is. 3d., for goods seld and delivered. .No defence. Verdict for amount, with costs. . - _ This being all the business before the Court, it . thereafter adjourned. ......

(Before H. M'Culloch, Esq., R.M.) Feid AT; I 2&th A.iawr, 1864/ ' There were no cases on the police sheet to-day . Crra Cases f- '»' ; Christie t. Habpeb. — Mr. Macdonald appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Harvey for the defendant: ' This was an action for specific performance of agreement of safte of a section of land in Dunedin, purchased by defendant from plaintiff for the^ sum of £50. The agreement set forth the bargain as above stated. ' The plea for the defence was non-liability, th© facts being admitted. . , . i Mr. Christie, plaintiff, deposed :— Know defendant. Have Bpoken several times to him. I sold a section of land to defendant for £50. The agreement produced is signed by Mr. Harper as purchaser.,, Mr. Hargin and .Mr. Thompson were present. The agreement was drawn up by Mr. Thompson from Mr. Harper's instructions. The cdnyeyance of the section is. made out in Mr. Reid's name. I have not received the £50. I have asked for the money. ; • ; Cross-examined.— There was: a search tor encumbrances mentioned at the time of sale. lam .. not aware if a' search has been made. j. -- LE. Hargin deposed.— Know the , parties. Was present on 29th" July, when the v agreementin question was signed by Mr. Harper. Mr. Harper asked me, about, ten jiays after he had.got word from Dunedin, if there would be any objection -to itliei conveyance, being-made. putjiri^Mj. * ;: Reid's name. Mr. Harvey.— -Was there" anj conTersation about the not paying the purchase money' until after the search had been made ? , , Mr. Macdonald objected to the terms of any Buch conversation" being Jieard, unless they could be shown in writing. , r The -Court having, ""ruled the question as admissible, 1 ,, . , v x „ Witness admitted there was a conversation on the subject. Did nofr*know,of any between Harper and Christie. , This was tie OBeefor'tJie plaintiff.'

Mr. harper deposed. —l Bignec tie agreemcjut;. I had been trying to effect a sale of the section in question, at Mr.. Christie's request, to liquidate his account. On 25th July, got a. note from Mr; Reid, agreeing to accept the section. I Sent notice to Mr. Christiethat I had got a buyer, and requested him to come to town to convey the property. Mr. Reid not having said in his letter in whose ; name to 'make ' oitit .ihe transfer, I J rev quested time to write to Dunedin again on the subject, meanwhile we exchanged sale | notes. I got a letter from Mr. Reid wishing the transfer made out in his own name. : ,■ Mr. Hargin offered to give m» the notice fos the Crown grant. I have never received it. He afterwards refused to gve me it. Cross-examined. — I signed the document for my»elf; but I explained at the time that I bought the property for Mr. Reid. The money has been overpaid by a contra account of the trustees. The contra account; amounts to £56 16b., and it was for the purpose of liquidating this debt that plaintiff asked me to dispose of his property. This -was the case for the defence. Mr. Harvey now addressed the Court, and admitted that in strict law his 1 learned friend on the opposite side could make but a case as regards the liability of the defendant, from the bare terms of the agreement; but he considered the Court could not but "agree that the defendant acted solely as agent for another party. Mr. M'Donald followed in reply, and contended that the defendant was personally liable, as there was no agency shown on' the face of the agreement, and quoted from several cases in support of h'ii client's case. The magistrate said he would decide the case in equity, and both in equity and law he considered "defendant liable. The agreement was dear end explicit, and he would accordingly give judgment for wrount (£SO) with £6 3s. of expemes. HiRGIN'S TRUSTEES V. CHKISTIB. Claim for £56 17s. for goods sold and delivered. Mr. Harvey appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. M'Donald for the defendant. A set-off was put in to the amount of £69 ss. Bd. Mr. Christie was called to prove the set-off, and deposed. — Mr. Harper is agent for Hargin's trustees. I have had a good many transactions with Hargin and Jaggers. The set-off applies to a horse. I have kept it from 20th February, 1863, to about 20th June, 1864. I was to be paid for the keep of it at a reasonable rate. The agreement was made with Mr. Hargin. I made a charge by the week, whether he was at home or not. I charged 20s. a week. I kept the horse 69 weeks and two days. £.69 ss. Bd. is the amount of the bill. I acknowledge a set-off to the extent of £56 16s. About £12 odd is due to me. It is doubtful if I get this money. Mr. Harvey — Don't you wish you may get it ? Cross-examined — The horse belonged to Hargin and Jaggers. The account was rendered on the 21st or "82nd June. Hargin is my son-in-law. I can't say how long the horse was in the stable at a time. I have a bad memory. E. Hargin deposed— l know Mr. Christie. The horee belonged to the firm of Hargin and Jaggers. It was bought for their use in 1863. Mr. Chri»tie was to have it to keep at 20s. a-wcek. Previous to this I used to pay 15s. andt2os. per day for a horse's keep. Mr. Christie has kept the horse for about eighteen months, so far as I recollect. I don't know how much or how often we used the horse. It would be about three days a month. The charge of Mr. Christie is a moderate one. Cross-examined — The horse is there for the trustee! if they like to take it. I gave over to the trustees all I had. I don't know if I mentioned the horse specially to the trustees. It was there for them if they chose to go for it. Re-examined— l bought the hoTßft on my own account, after Jaggers retired from the firm, I having taken over all the liabilities. Mr. Jaggers deposed — I am a tinsmith. Was a partner in 1863 with Hargin. We bought a horse for the use of the firm. Mr. Hargin took over all the liabilities of the firm. This was the case for the defence. *"* Mr. Harvey explained the nature of the plaintiff's case. The assignment was made on 21st April last, and he insisted that the set-off could only be applied to that portion of the goods which ■were sold prior to that date. Mr. Harper proved that the goods sold prior to the date of the assignment amounted to £20 9s. 7d. The goods got from the trustees amounted to £31 7s. sd. I have demanded repeatedly payment of both sums. Cross-examined. — I don't know anything of the horse. I received an account on 21st June last for the keep of a horse. I don't recollect if Mr Hargin ever told me the trustees might have the horse as an asset. Mr. Harvey now addressed the Court, and stated that if the account of £69 ss. Bd. were proved to the satisfaction of the Court, it would rank as on account against the estate, and the contra (for goods) of £20 9s. 7d., would be a setoff. As regards the goods got from the trußteeß, there must be a verdict for that keep. The keep of the horse after the date of the assignment would be chargeable to the trustees. Mr. Macdonald contended that there had been no rebutting evidence against the defendant's averments, and as to the assignment of all the goods of the firm to the trustees, the deed set forth that all the property, of every description, had been conveyed and handed over to them ; and further, as regarded ranking on the estate, the trustees had not allowed Christie to do so. It was not Christie's fault that the horse was not taken possession of, and he was clearly entitled to the keep of the animal. [It may be well to state that the reason Christie was not permitted to rank on the estate was that he had allowed the specified period to elapse.] The Magistrate reserved his decision on the case till the following morning. Habgin'b Trustees v. Goodfeixow. Claim £1 3s. 9d. No defence- Verdict for amount, with costs, 7s. Habgin's Trustees t MTfEix and Another. — Claim for £3 16s. Bd., for goodß supplied. No defence. Verdict for amount, with 7s. costs. Harvet v. M. Sales:. — Claim for £9 on a promissorry note. No defence. Verdict for amount, with costs. The Court then adjourned.