RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Issue 1783, 22 August 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before H. M'Culloch, Esq., R.M.) Tuesday, August 19. Bare Pratt and Co. v. Graham. — Mr Macdonald for plaintiffs. This was a claim for £9, value of two half chests of tea, delivered to a waggoner here on defendant's account. The defendant res-i les at Arrowtown, and his cvi lence was taken at Queenstown. The defence was that defendant had not received the tea. Plaintiffs proved delivery to waggoner in Invercargill in November, 1870, and the tea was subsequently traced on board the steamer at Kingston. Some correspondence had passed between plaintiffs and defendant, which established defendant's liability. His Worship held that delivery to the waggo»er was a sufficient delivery, and gave judgment for plaintiffs for amount claimed, with £2 6s costs. Pritchard v. Myers. — Plaintiff claimed £50 for trespass by defendant on a grass paddock, belonging to plaintiff, on the North Road. This was a nei hbor's quarrel, and involved much more than the matter complained of. Plaintiff owned a grass paddock lying between two sections belonging to defendant, who had for a long time been permitted to pass over it. The permission was, however, withdrawn, and the trespass commenced, and had been since continued in spite of plaintiff's prohibitions and remonstrances. There was evidently a bad feeling between the parties, but His Worship held that the trespass had been proved, and gave judgment for plaintiff for £5, with costs, £4 ls. Jack, Sa>nson and Co. v. Waddel — This was a claim for £22 19s 3d, being the value of certain timber not forwarded by defendant from the Bluff according to instructions, and which had been lost. Defendant pleaded agency. The facts were that plaintiffs sent down to the Bluff a quantity of timber to be forwarded to a Dunedin firm by the Wallabi. This vessel not being in port, and fche Rangatira being then loading, defendant, to expedite matters, sent the timber on by tho latter vessel, which had other timber on board. Plaintiffs' timber became mixed with tho shipment on board, and was delivered to the wrong consignee. The receiver of the timber per Rangitira had, as wa9 admitted, paid for the excess to the shipper, but the latter objected to hand over the excess to plaintiffs on the groun 1 thafc he was not satisfied as to thsir ownership. Judgment was given for amount claimed, with costs, £3 7s.