RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT—Yesterday.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 88, 20 January 1872, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT— Yesterday.

Before W. I'lt.lSEH, Esq., R.M. Undefended Cases. Judgments for Plaintiffs. —C. D. Berry v. Arthur 11. Lewiti, £G ss, for hoard and lodging, cash lent, &c.; J. Ackrovd v. Wood’s United Tookey Tribute Company (Limited), £4 ISs Jd, work and labour; Smiling Beauty G.M.C. v. Alexander Beveridge, £1 13s Gd, calls ; H. Bostock v. E. li. Thomas, £2 Is Gd, for hoard and lodging; J. Lymburn and Son v. J. Jones, £5 7s Bd, for goods ; Cosgrove and Co. v. P. L. Corston, £3 9s 2d, for goods : same v. M. Conroy, £2 3s lOd, for goods ; J. Dooley v. T. Williams, £2, for hoard and lodging (to be paid in instalments of 5s per week, and failing payment one month hard labour).

Casks Ai>joi'r.\ t kl>. —G. Woodward v. Moanataiari Water Supply Company, £SO, adjourned on application of Mr Macdonald for 14 days for flic attendance of a material witness from Auckland (Mr T. Bussell) on payment of costs ; Byan, Bell, and Co. v. J. Burns, adjourned to 2Gth inst. ; Fleming and Stevenson v. J. Maingay, £IG 4s, for goods, this was adjourned for a week on the application of Mr Dodd for defendant, on the ground of insufficiency of the hill of particulars which was ordered to be amended ; E. 11. Bcere v. Wirrmu Te Arainoana, till 11s, for services, Ac., adjourned for a week with a view to a settlement out of Court. A. Anthony v. B. C. Mainwaiiing. —Air Macdonald for plaintiff. Mr Tyler for defendant. This was a judgment summons on a judgment obtained for CG Gs for hoard an I lodging. The defendant did not appear. Mr Tyler said he had rcC'4ved a 'letter from deii ndan! saying' that it wee impossible for him nnnrw as he was required as a witness in the Supreme Court.—Tlie lI.M. said the defendant should have been summoned, to appear in Auckland. It might be that lie had no

money to pay his passage and expenses in coming here, and how was he to get here without? It was agreed that defendant should ho summoned to appear in Auckland next Court day.

J. Mann v. P. Warren. —Tin's case was adjourned from the previous Court day for the attendance of plaintiff’s wife and family, to testify whether or not a certain quantity of bread had been supplied.—Mr Dodd appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Macdonald for defendant. It was stated that Mrs'Mann was not in a lit state to appoar. The ease was adjourned for a, month.

P. Harold v. 11. Smith. —This ease stood over from the previous Court day, and was an action to recover the sum of £3 3s 9d on a balance of account. The defendant admitted the debt except as to 4s Gd which was in dispute. The R.M. said this appeared to he a partnership business in which he really had no jurisdiction and advised the parties to settle the matter out of Court, which they agreed to do.

L. Eiirenkried v. A. Butler —Mr Tyler for plaintiff’ and Mr Macdonald for defendant. —This was an action to recover the sum of £SO for the alleged breach of covenant made by defendant, that all the beer and ale used and sold at his licensed house —the Golden Age Hotel—should he puiv chased from plaintiff’s brewery. Mr Tyler said the covenant was an absolute one. and it appeared from his instructions, that at the time the covenant was made defendant intended to break it, for very soon after lie took the house he became very intimate with another brewer, Mr Scccombc, and took beer from him. Ho (Mr Tyler) gathered from the newspapers that some sort of defence would ho set up that the ale was not marketable, hut such a defence would ho no answer to this action, which was brought on an absolute and unconditional covemuit by defendant to take all liis ale and boor from plaintiff.—Lewis Myers proved the signature of Mr Elirenfried and Mr Butler to the agreement containing the covenant upon which this action was brought.—Albert Butler, landlord of the Golden Age Hotel, Waiotahi, deposed—l remember executing the deed produced. Have been carrying on the business of a licensed victualler since. I did take beer from Mr Ehrenfriod for about a month. Since then I have taken it from several parlies. Drew about live lilids. per month of Ehrenfried’s beer, and nine or ten afterwards. Before making tho agreement L used to take beer from Iff ironfried. Have been taking beer from Seccombe, Lemprierc, and from Dunedin. At the time of making the deed I was not negotiating with Mr Scccoinbe. He did not ask me to take his beer. Louis Ehrenfried deposed—lam a brewer, and plaintiff in this action. Know defendant. At the time the deed was executed he put his linger on Hie seal opposite the signature and said “I deliver this as my act and deed.” The document was then taken away to he stamped. Defendant after taking the Golden Ago Hotel, took beer from me for about a fortnight—from the Gtli to the 18th —4 lilids., 1 barrel, and 4 dozen, and one barrel subsequently, lie then ceased altogether. The profit on a hogshead of beer is about £1 to me, and I have lost the profits at that rate on all tlic beer Sir Butler should have taken when under the agreement. Mr Butler has paid for what beer he used.—By Sir Macdonald : I believe 1 paid the ss. mentioned in the agreement or the “ consideration.” It was paid in Mr Tyler’s office. * Sir Butler wanted to buy Ibis house, and lie could not get it without my consent, and i made this stipulation. I was not the owner, hilt the owner would not sell to him unless 1 agreed. 1 have some other houses with the same privileges. I supply nearly all the houses in the neighbourhood. Sly beer gives general satisfaction, and my trade increases. Sly trade increases on the merits of the beer quite as much as on these agreements. Have not above two houses under these obligations. I did suspect Sir Butler. He lias been under obligations to me. He came here with about ss. and 1 put him into a house, and lie done very well, lie is a big man now. He made use of the words to me at the brewery, “ I’ve got you ; 1 know I should have you, and I’ve goi you. ’ 1 know Sir Mahoney. He is a great friend of Sir Butler.—By Sir Tyler : I did suspect Sir Butler, as i saw him with Sir Scccombc at Sir Macdonald’s oilice, and it struck me that he was going to borrow money from Mr Seecoinbe.—SlrSlaedonald contended for the defence that the contract was a had one, and altogether against the policy of the law, and should not he upheld, or at all events, that the Court would look upon it with great disfavour. IJis learned friend said that the covenant was unconditional, hut did that mean that Sir Ehrenfriod having got Sir Butler's signature, could supply him with any rubbish he liked, lie should call evidence to show that the beer supplied by Mr Ehrenfried was not such as the customers would drink or could he expected to drink. Indeed there was a stipulation that the beer should he a good article.—The R.M. observed that Barclay, Perkins, and Co., and other largo brewers in London, had nearly all the public houses there under similar contracts. —Sir Tyler said the covenant in this case was copied from Rouse’s work on conveyancing, and might therefore he presumed to ho upon pretty good authority. The R.M. ruled that the contract was not void, as being against public policy.—Alfred Butler recalled : I did take some of Ehrenfried’s beer after the agreement. It was not of good marketable quality.—Sir Tyler objected to the reception of this evidence, as it was no answer to this action. The covenant was to take the beer unconditionally. If when the beer was supplied it was found to ho had, the publican might return it; hut lie could not refuse to accept any more. —Sir Slacdonald contended that this evidence was admissablc. The Court here adjourned for half an hour.

On resuming, the IBM. said he had considered the matter, and thought the cases quoted by defendant’s counsel were not quite ou all-fours with this case, but one of the cases cited ou the other side was so strong on the point that he did not think he should be justified in now hearing evidence as to the quality of the beer. Objection should have been raised to the quality at the time it was supplied, and if it was bad this would have been a good answer tc the action brought by the brewer to recover the price. As to the question of damages to which the plaintiff was entitled, he should assess the amount ou the prolits on a month's supply of nine hogsheads, at ID per hogshead. Judgment would accordingly he given for plaintiff for £'.» and costs, £l2 Bs. E. M. Wkst v. D. OivMK. —Mr Macdonald for plaintiff.—This was a claim for £G 15s 7d, for butcher's meat. —The defendant paid £4 18s 8d into Court, and pleaded not indebted as to the remainder. The amount in dispute was the difference between liie price of a quantity of beef at 4d per lb. and at 2jd. the plaintiff saying it was to be tlie former, and the defoudunt the latter.—Judgment for plaintiff ior the amount paid into Court. ,}. C. liitiiTKl; AX A C. BILIIKNO v. C. Grkenv. ay. —Mr Tyler said he had to apply for au adjournment in this case. It

was tin action to recover £36 12s Gd for work and labour done on a contract, and for some things that were done outside tho contract, and tho hill of particulars did not disclose sufficient for hinTtcr filo a set-off, which was the defence. — Case adjourned for a week.