RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Issue 1738, 9 May 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tttksdat, 6th Mat. (Before J. E. Cuthbertson and W. Warren, Eeqs , J.P.'s.) James Say, charged by the Inspector of Nuisances with leaving a dray and two horses unattended in the street, contrary to the Municipal regulations, admitted the offence, and was fined 5s and costs. ■- Kingswell v. Ching.— Claim for £8 15s, balance of purchase money of 16 pigs sold and delivered. Defendant did not appear. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs, £1 13s. Rose v. Cross and M'JFiMiam.— This was a claim for £3 10s 9d, unpaid balance of an account for goods sold and delivered. Mr Hose gave evidence as to the delivery of the goods, and said that he had frequently asked for a settlement of the balance of the account, both from Mr Cross and from Mir M'Williom. Mr M'William always referred him to Mr Oross, and Mr Cross laughed it off, but would not pay. Mr Cross had now left the country. In reply to Mr M'William, the witness said that the goods were not sent up for sale on commission, but actually sold to Cross and M'William. Mr M'William said that he had left the management of the business ohiefl/ to Mr Cross, but ho believed that the goods wire merely Bent for sale on commission, and thai the unsold balance, representing the amount now claimed, had been returned to Mr Rose's address. The partnership had been dissolved some time ago, due notire of the dissolution had been published, accompanied by .a request that all accounts against the late firm Bhould.be cent in at once, to" be settled by Mr Cross. In 9peaking of this very matter to Mr Cross, witness was told by Mr Cross 1 that the goods were for sale on commission. Did not recollect Mr Rose ever asking him for the balance after Mr Cross had left. The Court reserved decision. Stock and Co. v. Alswe'ler. — A claim for £11 16s, goods sold and delivired. Defendant did not appear. Judgment foi plaintiff, with costs, 13s. Mr Stock said he dil not wish to press hardly on plaintiff, and requested that an cider niishfc be made for the payment of the sum in instalments of 10s per week Or>ler accordingly. Ekensteen and Ball v. Amelia Birclmll. — This was a cluim for £5 17s, goods sold and delivered. Mr Matthews appeared for defendant. The defence was that the goods were obtained by defendant on behalf of her ' mother, and not for herself. Mr Ekensteen stated that when the goods were ordered he expressly agreed with de-: fendant that they were to be charge? to her account, and produced his books to ehbw that they had been so entere I at the time. Had they been asked for on account of Mr or Mrs Birohall he would not have taken the order, but wag willing to trust defendant, who had had' an nccount of her own in witness's books before, and had paid it. Plaintiff's evidence was corroborated in some particukie by his storeman, Sajers. Defendant and her sister gave evidence that the goods had been asked for on account of Mrs Birehull, and they understood that they were to be charged to her. Mr Matthews also produced a receipted account for a small sum to show that Mrs Birchull had had credit from the plaintiffs a short time before. The Court considered that the. balance of evidence was in favor of the plaiutiffs, |and gave judgment for the amount, with costs, 133. Mitchell v. Connor. — This was a claim for £4 10i for horse hire, six days at 15s per day. Defendant hired the horse for one trip from Woodlands to Inveicargill and back for five shillings, but instead of returning it as agreed on, kept it for six days. Defendant a dmitted the facts, explaining that he thought tlie horaa had been returned by a friend, but he objected to the charge as too high. Judgment for £2 ss, with costs, 9s. After a short adjournment the Coutfc re-tfm'tfdjr and thoir Worships gave judgment in the case of Kose v. Cross and M'William as follows :— The /file of the goods lor which this claim has been brought is sworn 'to by the plaintiff; a»id the defendant, although he says ho believes that the goods were sent up fortß \le on commission, ig not in a position to prove this, having taken no active part in the business. The dissolution of partnership and the announcement that the debts due by and to the firm would be paid byCross is not in itself sufficient to relieve the other partner from his liability for v any debts not so paid- It is not alleged that this amount has been paid, and judgment will be for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, but without costs, the Court considering that the course taken by the plaintiff in delaying to enforce his claim till Cross had left the country, has inflicted a hardship on the defendant. Thujjsdat, Bth Mat. (Before W. H. Pearson and J. R. Cuthbertßon, Esqs., J.Ps.) Jas. Cooper was fined 5s for leaving a horse and vehicle unattended in the 6treet. George Tomlinson was charged with plying for hire as a carter without a license, but the evidence being incomplete, the case was dismissed. Froggatt fy Patterson were fined 5b for neglecting to remove manure from their buck premises. Annie Hogan was fined 10a for neglecting to keep the back premises at her hotel in a proper state of cleanliness.