RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1972, 21 November 1889, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Geraldine—Wednesday, Nov. 2©,. 1889. [Before Captain C. A. Wraj, R.M., and Kev, G-. Barclay, J.P.] emi CASEB. R. H. Pearpoint v. G. Miles—Claim £9 2a lid.—Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs. Same v. G. Wood—Claim £1 6s.— Judgment by default for the amount olaimed, and costs. Wertheim Sewing Machine Co. v. A. Reid—Claim £9 6*, or the return of a sewing machine. Mr J. White for plaintiff and Mr F. Wilson Smith for defendant.

Mr White stated that in Dec, 1884, plaintiff let a sewing machine to a Mrs Benoett, of GeraHine, en a hiring agreement. In 1885 a judgment, be understood, was obtained against the hirer, and the machine sole on a distress warrant by the bailiff, defendant becoming the pur-

chaser. The plaintiff was unable to discover where it bad gone till the beginning f 1889, and then a notice had been served upon defendant, who declined to give it up unless compelled to do so by the Court, The defendant bad the opportunity of returning the machine <ir piyieg for it, £9 6s. Mr White ealled

J, Mnndell, auctioneer, of Geraldine, who deposed to getting instructions in 1885 to sell the machine. Understood the machine came came from Mr Gore's. Understood the iudgment had been in favor of Mrs Bennett against Mr Gore. To Mr Wilson Smith: The sale was delayed some eight or ten days to allow of the company being communicated with to see what claim they bad on it. They not replying when communicated with it was put up for absolute sale and disposed of. It was supposed to be Gore's. It was in his possession. Mr White said that evidence, together with Messrs Moore, Lockbead, aud Nelton's evidence, which had been taken

in Timaru was the plaintiff's owe. Tn reply to the Beach Mr Mundell said that the distress was upon Gore's things, and Mrs Bennett was living there as housekeeper. Mr Wilson Smith said the defence was that through their negligence tbs plaintiffs had forfeited all claim to tbe machine. The agent had ample notice of the sale, and was told it was believed to be the property of Gore, and unless he (the agent) took steps to prevent it, it would be aold. It was the agent's own negligence that allowed the sale to take place, and now he wanted some eoo else to suffer for it.

His Worship asked if the number of tbe machine had been given io the letter sent, ' as if not the agent would know nothing of any transaction with Gore. A. I3id, plaintiff, deposed to buying the maohine at auction in 1885. Understood it was for absolute sale, and that it was Gore's machine. The sale was delayed Bor 10 days to allow of the company being oommunioated with as to what claim they had upon it. Understood Hamilton to be the agent, as he was travelling with the van and had several machines. Hamilton saw him a shorty time aftor he got the maohine, ond asked him go give it up. He told Hamilton he would sot give it uoleis the oourt took it from him. To Mr White: Showed the machine to Leon Nelton, another agentj in October last, and he looked at the number. To Mr Wilson Smith: Did not know whether he oolleoted money for the oompany or not.

0. S. Sherratt, bailiff at the Geraldine B.M. Court, iworD, said he wai bailiff in 1885. At that time judgment wai got by Mrs Bennett against Gore. Among the Hit of thing! seized was the sewing machine, Mrs Gore told him that it belonged to the Wertheim Company. Witness Hiked who tbe agent was, and was told Hamilton. WTote to Hamilton's address, Aihburton.

Mr White said the proof of the receipt of the letter must be given, and contended in the first place that there wai no proof that Mr Hamilton was the agent, or that the letter was received by him. The Bench said that unless the letter had been returned through the dead letter office it would have been delivered to someone. Mr White said unless it had baen given to another person of the same name. This man Hamilton hed not been seen in the district for yean. Mr Wilson Smith said the Bench eonld deoide whether tbe contents of the letter should be taken rs evidence or not. Witness continued: In tbe letter told Hamilton that he had seizsd a machine under instructions from Elizabeth Bennett supposed to b:long to Gore. Beceived bo answer to the letter, and telegraphed saying that unless he received an answer he would sell it.

The Bench pointed put that the letter referred to a machine supposed to belong to Gore.

In reply to the Benoh, witness again said that be wrote Hamilton that he had seized a maohine belonging to Gore at the instance of Mrs Bennett, and wanted to know what claim he had on it. To Mr Wilson Smith: Mrs Bennett had been at Gore's house as housekeeper while his wife was away for a time. She had no other MBidenoe of her own then. Delayed the sale eight or ten days till he eould find out about the maohine. To Mr White: Was not aware at the time ; the cempany had a head office in Dunedin. j Hamilton had spoken to witnen about taking j oat a summons on behalf of the oompany, and witness considered him as agent. To the Bench—Mrs Gore was back then and told me it was not paid for. To Mr White—She did not tell him how much was still owing. Told him Hamilton was the agent, Mrs Bennett pressed him to sell. Thought he htl taken a copy of the lett r, but eould not lay his hand upon it. Mr Wilson Smith asked for a judgment for his client upon the grounds that the plaintiff waj debarred from ola : ming by his allowing the sale, and by his negligence and most unbusinesslike manner of conducting his business. It seemed to be plain that it did not matter to him who tojk the maohine so long as he could follow it and take action against the person unfortunate enough to get hold of it. The Benoh said that no doubt it was a hardship to defendant to have to give up the maohine, but they did not think there was Buch negligence shown as would justify the court in stopping the maohine from plaintiff. It was quite the letter waj sent, but it was not made so clear that the maohine mentioned was the one let to Mrs Bennett. It did not appear that Hamilton had ever commnnioated to r.*s principals where this maohine was. They thought the law was quite olea:* that a person odd reoover property let for hire if the property waj «old, even afbr Buoh a lap.e of i'.me. It waj no doubt a hardship on the defendant, but that wai the j law, and judgment must be for the plaintiff

f for the delivery of the sewing machine or iti value, and costs, J. Wilson v. B. Bayley—Claim £ll 3i for wages for plaintiff, his wife and son. Mr F. Wilaon Smith for defendant. The sum of £5 7s was paid into court. Thii was a dispute as to an amount due for wages. After hearing both sides judgment was given for £2 18b and oosts. W. Lawson v. Kobinson—Claim £3 4i, loss caused by non-delirery of 81 sheep, balance of 92 bought, Mr Wilson Smith for plaintiff, and Mr Salmond (Temuka) for defendant. From the evidence of the two parties it appeared,that plaintiff bought some sheep, to be taken away in ' hree drafts. Plaintiff took two drafts, and the third lot were kept by defendant, who refused to let him have them on the ground that he had not come for them in the time stipulated. Defendant filed a set- off of f 3 4', in whioh he olaimed for grazing for the extia time, and for labor in looking after the sheep. It appeared to be a mistake between the parties, paintiff agreeing to take the sheop away in three drafts and defendant stating that they were to be taken in three weeks. Defendant refuted to let plaintiff have the balance cf 31 sheep, as he had not taken them in three weeks. In the meantime sheep had gone up 2i 6d per head, and plaintiff claimed a loss of 2s per head; Judgment was given for plaintiff for the amount olaimed, 18i 9d being aMowed of the set-off for grazing. The Court then rose,