RESIDENT MAGISTRATES’ COURT.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 32, 13 November 1871, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES’ COURT.

Saturday, November 11th. Before W. Fraser, Esq., R.M. Samuel Young v. J. Coiien. —This was an action to recover the sum of £SO, for an alleged breach of contract for the letting of the Anchor Hotel, and stood over for judgment from last Court day. It will he remembered that Mr. Tyler, for the defendant, raised two nonsuit points : first, that the contract was unilateral, and that there was no mutuality between the parties ; second, that there was no evidence of breach of contract on the part of Cohen, who was ready to carry out the agreement, lint the other parties backed out. —The R.M. now said lie was quite satisfied on the facts of the case, and had consulted the authorities on the points raised l>y Mr Tyler at the former hearing. It was laid down in “Chilly on Contracts,” that the assent of the parties to the terms of the agreement must he mutual. But, although this be the case, still it does not follow in every case that an agreement will in every caso he had for want of mutuality, merely because each party cannot from the time of making thereof have an action upon it, in regard to matters to he performed by the other contracting party. There are certainly cases in whieh'if it appear that the one party never was hound on his part to do the net which forms the consideration in tho promise of tho other, tho agreement

will be void for want of mutuality. But there arc others in which this rule does not hold good. In Birkmyr v. Darnellone of Smith’s leading cases—it was laid down that with respect to the signature it is ouly necessary that the memorandum be signed by the party against whom it is sought to be enforced. Upon the perusal of these _ and other authorities, he was of opinion that in this case the signature of both parties was not necessary, and the agreement only required the signature of the paity against whom the contract was sought to be enforced, and lie therefore gave judgment fer plaintiff for £SO damages, and costs £8 18s. Bull and Sturrock v. Robert Fergusson.—Mr. Lascelles for plaintiff Claim for £7 8s 3d for goods sold to defendant. No defence. Judgment for plaintiff

P. Norbury v. C. Mclntosh. —Claim for £2 12s Gd for goods. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff. J. Cook v. J. O'Neill. —Claim for £l2 9s for board and lodging, &c. The defendant did not appear, and plaintiff having proved the debt, judgment was given for the amount claimed.

C. Fletcher v. C. Blake.—This was a judgment summons case for £2 6s Id. The defendant did not appear, and a warrant was ordered to be issued for his apprehension. W. Slater v. E. Rogers. —Mr McDonald for plaintiff, Mr Lascelles for defendant. This was an r Lion to recover the sum of £7 10s for work and labour done in making plan , preparing specifications, &c., for the Harbour View Hotel. The defence was that there was no charge to be made for the work. The plaintiff, the defendant, and several other witnesses were examined, but the facts deposed to, disclosed no feature of any interest whatever except to the parties concerned. The Resident Magistrate gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed and costs £0 10s, J. McKelvie v. C. Rowley. —Mr Macdonald for plaintiff, Mr Lascelles for defendant. This was an action to recover the sum of £4 4s Gd for an alleged breach of contract for the sale and transfer of twenty-four shares in the Belmont Gold Mining Company. Mr Philp, the legal manager of the Company, stated that the transfer produced had been handed to him for registration, but had been refused as there was a call of 12s Gd due. Charles Rowley deposed in August, last I did not sell to the plaintiff any shares in the Belmont. I never saw the plaintiff before. The signature to the document produced (transfer of 24 shares) is I believe mine. I transferred them to Mr Collett, that is - I put them ' ito his hands for sale. By Mr Lascelles: I knew a ’all had been made the amount due for that call was deducted from the amount to be paid for the shares. As the time of the execution of the transfer the puichasers name was not filled in. Mr. Collett requested me to allow 3d per share to be deducted for the call. I was willing to have paid the amount afterwards, and to have got back the shares but could not do so.—Mr. Collett deposed to the fact of 3d per share being deducted. Do’nt remember the price. The price set down in the transfer is £2O, but that was not the real amount of consideration. Got no commission for this transaction. Was in Mr. Philp’s office at the time. Do’nt think he got any commission either. Ca’nt say whether it was here that witness learned to put down £2O in the transfer when the real price was £4 4s Gd.The plaintiff was next called, and said Mr. Collett’s version of the transaction was incorrect. Mr. Collett told witness nothing about 3d per share being deducted for call ; nor did he say anj’thing about a call having been made, lie saiil all calls were paid up to date. Could not get the transfer registered in the first place, because it was not stamped, and then because the call had not been paid.—Mr. Collett was re-called, repeating his previous test hnony, and contradicting McKelvie’s statement of what took place.—Mr. Philp was re-called, and in answer to the R.M., said that he would have transferred the shares if the calls had been paid.—The learned counsel having addressed the Court on behalf of their respective clients, the R.M. gave judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed and costs, £2 4s.

C. Walnutt v. J. Ballin —Mr Macdonald for plaintiff ; defendant, in person. Claim for £G 3s, for beer supplied several months ago to defendant, at Coromandel. —The defendant said a considerable quantity of the beer was sour and was returned as unmarketable, and this lie objected to pay for. He returned 42 gallons, and a portion of 3G gallons also. Had paid for all the rest. After leaving Coromandel, went to Fiji, and then returned. —The R.M. gave judgment for plaintiff, with costs, £2 4s. W. Swan v. W. Douglas. —Mr Dodd for plaintiff ; Mr Macdonald for defendant. This v san action for the alleged unlawful cle { .lion of a watch, and a box containing clothing, &c., the whole of the value of £l3 3s Gd.—The plaintiff stated that he' had been staying with the defendant, and left his things there. Defendant refused to give them up. He said witness owed him £2. Witness offered to pay him, and then lie said the things should not go away unless £6 were paid.—William Douglas said lie had in his possession some things of defendants, which he detained, asthe latter was in his debt for board and lodging, from 17th August to Bth October, at 15s per week. Offered to let things go for £2 cash, and balance to be paid afterwards, but plaintiff enly offered 255, which witness would not take.—The Resident Magistrate said the plaintiff had better take a non-suit. This was accepted, and plaintiff was non-suited accordingly, with £1 11s costs.