RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Issue 653, 5 April 1867, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wednesday, 3bd April. (Before H. M'Culloch Esq., E.M.) Civix, Case. Smyth v. Ibvine. Action to recover -637, value of certain pile-driving, machinery. For plaintiff, Mr Macdonald; for defendant, Mr Harvey. The plaintiff, A. J. Smyth, gave .evidence to the effect that defendant had taken possession of a pile-driving " monkey," and other material. That these things were plaintiff's property—-pur-chased from Mr J. E. Davies, along with other plant not given over to the Southland Government. A. Sayers stated that he was employed by plaintiff a short time ago with reference to a " monkey." Witness was re- . quested by him to apply to Mr,lrvine about it. Did so, telling him that he had placed himself in a strange position by taking it, and that he had better make some arrangement. Mr Irvine said he would send it back at the end of six weeks or so — that it wouid not be much worn by being used on his contract. He further said that he would return it at once but that he might compromise himself by acknowledging Mr Smyth as the owner, inasmuch as he had borrowed the property from the Government. Witness said it did not belong to the Government, but Mr Smyth. The following evening, by the latter's instruction, witness wrote a letter to defendant and delivered it. (Letter read, threatening legal proceedings unless the pile- j driving machine was returned within 24 j hours.) Defendant did not return it to witness's knowledge. The value of ordinary castings was 3d per lb. Mr Harvey explained to the Court that with reference to the evidence of a witness (Mr Paterson, the ■Railway Engineer) fbr whose attendance^ the case had been adjourned on previous days, that he (Mr H.) had ascertained he only gave the permission implied in the words " that he had no objection to Mr \ Irvine getting the use of the pile-driver." ; In the course of further inquiries he (Mr H.) had been referred from one official to another and finally back to the Eailway Engineer. The affair was hazy altogether. He would call the plaintiff to prove how he came to take the machine. C. D. Irvine stated that he went to Mr J Paterson and asked for the loan of the "monkey." He was busy just then and asked witness to write the question, and when he came back he would see. Witness wrote accordingly, receiving a reply to the effect that if the government gave leave Mr Paterson had no objection to offer. Witness then wrote to the Government and received a reply (letter produced) signed by Mr Aylmer, Clerk to the Superintendent, granting the loan. Witness' men then took the machine — on the 27th Dec. last. At the time when Mr Sayers spoke about it witness explained that the machine belonged to the government, and that he was bound to return it when he had done with it. Witness further said that under any circumstances the machine would receive no injury. The evidence of the plaintiff, of Messrs J. A. Boss and N. Campbell as to the value of the machine was heard at some length. Mr M'Culloch to defendant—" When you got Sayers' letter that must have put you on your guard." Defendant : "I \ was told in it that if not returned within 24 hours proceedings would be taken. I was under the impression that the permission obtained from the Government was sufficient." Mr Harvey in addressing the Court eaid the evidence proved that his client had not taken the machine rashly having relied on the. government permission. They were willing to replace the machine if judgment were given in terms to protect them. After a brief consultation Mr Macdonald on the part of Mr Smyth assented to the proposal. Mr M'Culloch gave judgment, for the plaintiff -637 with costs. That amount to.be reduced to £4 if the machine were returned within two days to the place whence it was taken.