MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2702, 23 August 1894, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Geraldine — Tuesday, August 21,1894. [Before Messrs R. H. Pearpoint and A. White, J.P.’s,] CIVIL CASES. H. B. Webster & Co. v. H. Ohiverson — Cla ; m £6 11s, balance, due on amount owing for horse and harness.—Mr F. Wilson Smith appeared for plaintiff, for whom judgment by default was given for amount claimed, with costs and immediate execution.

James Turner v. John Farrell—Claim £8 Bs, for cordial supplied and empty bottles not returned.

Jamea Turner, cordial manufacturer, Geraldine, deposed that he had charged defendant with empty bottles not returned, and defendant refused to pay for same.

By defendant: Had no agreement with regard to empty bottles, and had never charged defendant for “ empties ” prior to the present account. There was no necessity to do so previously, as the bottles had always been returned as near as possible to his (plaintiff’s) satisfaction. Remembered ‘defendant tendering £6 16s lOd in payment of his account, but he (plaintiff) declined same as it was not the full amount. Paid 38s and 27s or 28s per gross for bottles in Dunedin. John Farrell, licensee Crown Hotel, Geraldine, defendant, deposed that on July 31st plaintiff billed him for certain empty bottles, and he (defendant) said •* I am not going to pay for empty bottles as I never had to pay for them before.” To save a dispute, however, he (defendant) afterwards offered to pay the Dunedin price of any empties not returned, but -plaintiff refused the money. How, he (defendant) declined to pay for any unretnrned “empties” because there had been no agreement and he had never been' charged before.

By plaintiff: Never was threatened to be charged for empties before. Plaintiff had sometimes said “ There is. not so many empty bottles returned as there should be.” But plaintiff had often taken his (defendant’s) own empty bottles away with him. David Butler, horse trainer, Geraldine, gave evidence with respect to taking £6 lbs lOd to plaintiff on July 31st, which the latter declined to accept. Defendant recalled, said he did not dispute the account as regards full bottles, but he disputed the demand for payment of empty bottles, and also the overcharge in price for empty bottles. Plaintiff, recalled,said he had only once previous to this charged a publican for empty bottles not returned. There was no necessity to charge others, as the bottles usually were returned as near as possible. Defendant, again pat in the box,said he had no empty bottles to return. He expected that plaintiff had taken them all, but he had no agreement with plaintiff about empties. The Bench ;* “ But yoq virtually made an agreement by signing plaintiff’s printed ticket, which reads ‘All empty bottles not returned will be charged for,’ ” The Bench, on going through plaintiff’s receipt book, drew attention to an error in his account by which ha had not credited defendant with the return of bottles to the value of 13s 6d. This amount was then deducted from the account, and the Bench gave judgment for plaintiff for full bottles £5 ss, and 6J dozen empties at 3Jd. No costs were allowed. , Plaintiff asked if he could appeal against the judgment, and the Bench informed ipm that if he desired it he coaid apply |or a re-hearing before the Magistral e. \ /’ Court then rose. s' I V ' ■■■—