Untitled

Southland Times, Issue 601, 7 December 1866, Page 3

Pbistingby Telegbaph. —The United Kingdom Telegraph Company have now in operation at their station at Newcastle and other parts of their lines the remarkably ingenious apparatus known as Hughes's printing telegraph, of which we believe they haY9 the exclusive use- The Messages sent are printed by the action of the electric fluid in neat Eoman capitals, so that all arbitrary signals are done away with, and the message may be forwarded to the recipient in precisely the same condition as that in which it leavetJ the machine. —" Northern Daily Expresi."

EESIDENT MAGHSTBATE'S COURT. (Before H. M'Culloch, Esq., E.M.) THURSDAY, 6th DECEMBER, 1886. The application of N". Johnson for a a removal of publican's license was granted. Applications for publican's licenses by D. Morison, M. M'Phee and Thomas Meadows were granted. Civil Case. eisetto v. liveset a?sd spekceb. This was an action to recover the sum of £9 16s for work and labor done. Defendants pleaded not indebted —that the claim had been satisfied. Mr Macdonald appeared for the defendants. "Witnesses in the case were ordered out of Court. John Baptiste Bisetto, the plaintiff, sworn, stated the amount claimed was due to him for work done as sailmaker on board the schooner Zephyr, commencing on the 10th July and ending on ■3rd August last, at ta per day. There was no regular agreement made. Plaintiff was put on board the Zephyr by Mr Livesey, but nothing was said about wages ; he understood he was to get the same as the others. (An item of 305., boat hire, part of claim, was not disputed, except on the ground stated in the plea.) He had never been paid anything on account of the claim, but had borrowed 10s from Mr Spencer when going down to the ship, and still owed it to him. Cross-examined by Mr Macdonald — Mr Spencer first spoke to me in an amicable way about going to work on board the Zephyr. I am brother-in-law to his wife. I did not owe Mr Spencer more than the 10s. between July and August. I swear that positively neither did I owe him anything when he spoke to me about going down to the Zephyr. When I completed my work, I applied to Mr Livesey who sent me to Mr Spencer with an account (produced.) He told me I would get paid some time. There was no arrangement made between Spencer and I that the sum should go to pay money due by me to him. The next time I applied for payment was to Mr Livesey just before taking out the summons. I know of no dispute between Spencer and Livesey. There was no arrangement between Spencer and I about the account. I did apply to the Clerk of the Court for a summons against Livesey alone. Plaintiff called no witnesses. Mr Macdonald, in opening the case for the defendant, said he would briefly refer to certain circumstances in connection with the claim. Messrs Spencer and Livesey were part owners of the schooner Zephyer, and it appeared that some disputes between them had arisen about disbursements made by Spencer during Livesey's absence, on the ground that they were not authorized by him. On Livesey's return. Spencer had rendered an account to him showing £9 16 paid to Eissetto, and when asked about it said it was paid by a contra account. Touchers to that effect had not been produced. Mr Macdonald went on to say that this claim had been resisted by Mr Livesey not so much for its amount as to check other claims of a similar nature. Further that he suspected collusion between Spencer and Eissetto, and, considering the extraordinary way plaintiff gave his evidence, there seemed room for the inference. "Willian Livesey defendant, sworn, stated he knew Spencer the codefendant. They were joint owners of the schooner Zephyr, which they purchased about six months ago. Had authorised Eissetto'a work: he was employed by Spencer. Had been absent ten days short of three months, or from 10th August to 14th October last. During that time disbursements had been made by Spencer, who had rendered an account. He (Spencer) had no authority to disburse. Mr M'Culloch — What, is this evidence to prove collision ? Mr Macdonald — Yes. They were not partners, but joint owners. Examination continued.—The item £9 16s in the account is marked as paid Eissetto as per voucher. The unpaid accounts were shown separately in the corrected account (produced) but not in the first one rendered. Plaintiff first applied to witness for payment when the summons was served. Spencer and Eissetto were married to sisters. They had ! —as partners—made a claim on witness for goods supplied to the Zephyr. Disputes had arisen between Spencer and witness, and he (witness) had written to nim to the effect that he did not recognise his action during his (witness's) absence. To Mr M'Culloch —Spencer told me he had paid Eissetto. I had questioned an item of boom and oars said to have been lost, and wrote across the account to that effect, B. C. Spencer —who preferred a claim for expenses —sworn, stated he was joint owner of the Zephyr, and one of the defendants in the action. He denied the debt altogether —knew nothing about it. As far as he knew it was not owing to Eissetto. He did with Livesey employ Eissetto, but knew nothing of the work done. Livesey had said he would not pay a shilling of the accounts. Had, as managing partner, rendered accounts to Livesey. In an recount rendered witness had charged Livesey £9 16s paid Eissetto as per receipt. It was omitted from the list of unpaid accounts. Had charged Livesey 12^ per cent, on Bums lying out until they were paid. Mr Macdonald — Then what right had you to charge it on money not paid. "Witness —l have never told Liveaey this account was paid. Mr Macdonald—Here is a prior account reader.®*. In thin it i* charged »»

paid— at least comes under others marked paid, and has against it the marks signifying ditto. "Witness — I don't see it, it is an account current. There is £80 or £90 the same way for sails. Mr M'Culloch — You must be aware that you are charging interest. "Witness — That account was only to show the amount due. To Mr M'Culloch — I have never paid Eissetto. I only dispute the account because I do not know the work has been done. A. Sayers examined, stated he knew the defendants in the action, and had been employed by Mr Livesey as accountant. Did not know the plaintiff Eissetto. When examining the vouchers had pointed out to Spencer that the one then in dispute had not been paid although charged as paid in the account current. Spencer gave it to witness as a receipted account. "When witness asked him about it, he said it was paid by a contra account. The account (produced) was the one witness had marked at the time with his initials. Mr Macdonald : Tour worship will bear in mind that it was produced this morning by Eissetto. . ' Examination continued : Spencer said it was paid by a contra account. He said there is Livesey's own order to get it paid. There were not vouchers for half the sums charged in the account current. This closed defendant's case. Mr M'Culloch said there were suspicious circumstances attending the account as charged and discribed by Sayers not to have been receipted, in the assertion that it had been paid by contra. Still according to the evidence before the Court the amount was due to Eissetto. The circumstances were very suspicious, but of course the settlement of disputes between the owners must remain with themselves. The amount claimed would have to be charged as against Livesey and Spencer, as joint owners, as the suspicion was not sufficient to justify the Court in picking out one of the defendants. Judgment would be for the plaintiff, with costs. The bill (the one produced in evidence) would be attached to the particulars, and be kept in Court. DUNCAN Y. DAVIS. Action to recover value of anchor and chair, alleged to be the property of the plaintiff, and illegally detained by defendant. Erom the evidence it appeared the plaintiff about two years ago lost by wreck at Stewart's Island a cutter called the Eeserve belonging to him. The anchor and chain were among the few things saved, and were taken charge of by different parties. Among others, by one Jacky, a Kanaka native, (stated by plaintiff to be 100 years old, and to have worked in the cutter with him). To Jacky plaintiff owed £2, which sum Jacky in turn was owing to Davis for a month's board and money advanced. Plaintiff sent an order to Jacky to dispose of the anchor and chain for £3 and return the £1 overplus. Instead of effecting a sale, Jacky, who had been very ill, handed over the articles to Davis as security for his debt. Davis, when applied to by Duncan, refused to give up the anchor or chain, but explained in Court that he was willing to have given back the latter if the plaintiff hadn't "bounced him." Under these circumstances judgment was given for defendant with costs ; the chain to revert to plaintiff.