29th August, 1864.

Southland Times, Volume I, Issue 39, 30 August 1864, Page 3

29th August, 1864.

(Before H. M'Culloch, Esq., R. M.) The Police sheet was a blank this morning. Civil Cases. habgi>"'s trttstees v. cheißtie. The Magistrate gave judgment in this case, wliich was heard before him on Friday last. 'He found plaintiffs entitled to a verdict for tiieir account of £56 16s. 4d. after deducting £20 10s. 7d., being the value of the goods supplied previous to the assignment, leaving a balance of £86 ss. 9d. As to the set off of £69 ss. Bd. for horse keep, all, with the exception of the sum of £8 10s. Bd., was a claim on the estate prior to the execution ofthe deed of assignment, and could not be admitted in the present action. Tlie sum of £8 10s. Bd. the Court allowed, which, deducted from the amended sum of £36 ss. 9d., left a balance of £27 15s. Id., for which amount a verdict was awarded with £6 7s. of coßts. MTTNBO V. HABBIS. Mr. Harvey for plaintiff; Mr. South for de--fendant, This was au action to recover proceeds of goods sold by defendant. Amount claimed, £67 4s. 6d. The* defence was — " not indebted," and the plea was that defendant had acted as an auctioneer, and that he had accounted to a Mr. Greenslade for the proceeds of the goods sold. It appeared that plaintiff gave specific instructions as to the sale of the goods and as to the price to be got. A letter of instruction was produced and read. Mr. Munro then gave evidence as to the prices for the goods claimed being fair and reasonable, and such as coidd have been got in Queenstown, where Mr. Reuben Harris sold the goods. Mr. Greenslade was authorised by bin to get a settlement, and receive the sale money on his account. Mr. Greenslade had informed him that all but the gin had been accounted for. Ho had also given him a memorandum of the goods sold. Plaintiff further deposed. — I never got £1 lis. lid. from Greenslade as from Mr. Han-is. He told me that Harris had flatly refused to furnish an account sales. Mr. Greenslade deposed.— l, as Mr. Munro s *gent, went to Harris for a settlement of goods in dispute. I was refused an account sales of the geneva. I got an account for 6ale of salt — one bag, I think, and amounting to £1 lis. lid. Harris told me he had sold the geneva. He said the party wouldn't pay, owing to the geneva being watered. Cross-examined. — Harris gave me a cheque for £1 lis. lid. I acted as Muuro's agent. Harris put me off from day to day ; at last he said he wouldn't pay, as he hadn't received the money himself. The memo, produced is the one I got from Harris. I sold salt from same invoice at ld. per lb. Mr. South.— And this was the same quality of salt wliich Mr. Munro says was under sold ? Cross-examined.— Harris told me the gm was at the Arrow. He had sold it there, but the buyer wouldn't have it, as it was watered. He offered me an order for the gin, to be delivered to me at the Arrow. I had no business there, and didn't take the order. By the Bench.— The value of gin at the Lake (lowest quahty) at that time was 605., aud the best, 655. T C. Basstian proved the delivery of the gm. 1 tasted the gin. It was not watered. The anchor brand was on the cases. They were loaded by me at Munro's store in Riverton. I tasted at Armstrong's gin of the same brand as that I delivered to Reillv and Brown. Andrew Louttit deposed. — I am a storekeeper at Queenstown. In the month of May the value of gin would be from 555. to 655. The " anchor brand, being one of the best, is worth 60s. It is not worth so much now a3 it was a fortnight ago. Cross-examined— Prices vary very much at the Lakes. I should not like to buy the "star brand even at the market price now. I dont know anything of the present lot of gin. This was the case for the plaintiff. Mr. South applied for a nonsuit, on the grounds that defendant had acted solely as an auctioneer, and that no reserve price had been fixed, but that the instructions were to the effect that Munro was to procure the best price he could. Mr. Harvey maintained that the best price had not been got, and that Harris had departed from the instructions he had received. The Court disaUowel a non-suit. Mr. R. Harris deposed.— l furnished an account sales to Mr. Greenslade, as Mr. Munro's agent.. He handed me an order. I sent him to check the godds. This would be in the end of April, dr. beginning of May. My instructions from Munro. were given me verbally, on 24th March. They were to the effect that' l was to do the best I could for him. In the cases consigned to me a good deal, of leakage ''occurred. We repacked them, and found about two casea short. They were nineteen in number in place of twenty-one. The gin was sold as good, ;to the highest bidder. It was sold on terms (two months credit) xn order to getthe best price I could. It was Hankey s sto. brand. ... I could. not have„.sold ; .it for ready^ money. I tried it all over the town, J.D. X.A is the bestbrahd,Yl got goods in"' -security for they due payment of the gin:" *I was afterwards-told the gin was watered^ Mr. Greenslade^ took no exception to the account sales I rendered him. Cross-examined— When the gin was received, 1 did not inform Mr. Munro of the short measure - ttfari. ltimralmvmttof Join*. Th* &&"*»>*

sold to^one Prevor, a packer. I have a lien over the gin sold. Muuro never authorised nic specially tb sell the goods on credit. I swear tho gin had not the " Anchor ", brand on it. * " Mr. Brown, of Kingston, (of the firm of Reilly and Brown) gave unimportant evidence as to tho -receipt by them arid delivery to Munro of the goods referred to. Mr. South addressed the Court for the defence. Mr. Harvey followed on the opposite side. The Court found judgment for tho defendant with costs, £12 19s. Mr. Harvey gave notice of appeal in this case. The costs to abide the final decision. , TAYXOB AND SIABCHANT V. CRATE. Mr. Macdonald appeared for plaintiffs ; defendant did not appear. Action to recover £8 lis. for professional services as surveyors. The case was proved, and The Court gave judgment for plaintiffs, with costs. DIXON V. STEVENS. Mr. Harrey appeared for the plaintiff. No defence. The action was to recover £26 105. ld. for goods delivered. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs £3 ISs. BUEKE V. SHEELOCK. Claim for £3 12s. Bd. for board and sundries. Defendant disputed the debts, and the ease was adjourned for the production of further evidence. BUEKE V. GREEN. Claim for £3 135., for goods supplied. Judgment by consent of parties — defendant to pay at the rate of 10s. per week. MONKMAN V. SWAN. Claim for £6 145., for timber supplied. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs. LAMBEET V. COUSINS. Mr. Button appeared for the defendant. Plaintiff in person. The claim was for three days' horse hire. The Court found the case proven for the defendant, and gave judgment accordingly, with costs. EKENSTEEN V. HICKS. Claim for £11 14s. 6d., for goods supplied. No defence. Verdict for amount, with costs. HAEGIN V. HAEGIN'S TRUSTEES. Mr. Macdonald appeared for the plaintiff. Mr. Harper explained that he was not authorised to appear for the trustees in actions in which they were defjn.lunts, or to pay any monies on their behalf. He repudiated his liability to be sued for the trustees, and he could not defend any action raised against them unless he had their instructions so to do. He was merely acting as their agent in realising the estate, and had no power to disburse monies. After some discussion, the Bench ordered that the trustees should be summoned personally, and the ease was adjourned for this purpose. The Court then rose.