COURTS.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 160, 13 April 1872, Page 3

COURTS.

POLICE COURT.- Yesterday. Before Jackson Keddell, Esq., R.M. Drunkenness. —Robert Wilson and Ellen Duncan were charged with this offence. The former pleaded guilty, and was fined 10s, or 24 hours’ imprisonment. The latter pleaded not guilty, and was fined 20s, or 48 hours’ imprisonment on the case being proved by the constable who arrested her.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT— Yesterday. Before Jackson ICeddell, Esq., R.M. E. Binney. v. R. Baird.— Mr Tyler for plaintiff, Mr Beveridge and Mr Macdonald for defendant.—This was an action to recover the sum of £34 11s 6d for goods sold and delivered, for services rendered, and for commission. There was a crossaction by R. Baird against E. Binney for £4l Is Gd for goods sold and delivered. — Both cases were heard together.—Edwin Binney, auctioneer and commission agent, deposed: that on the 13lli October lie sold to Mr Baird 102 tons potatoes at £4 per ton, and some time afterwards witness received instructions from him fo sell. Sold tons, the commission on which was 5 per cent., and amounted to £l3. Nothing was said about commission. Labor amounting to £9 was incurred for keeping and delivery, and there were expenses for carting, for bags,&c. Witness was examined as to the correctness of several items enumerated in the hill of particulars, and stated that the balance £34 11s Gd was now due and owing. The transactions referred to in Mr Baird’s particulars of demand arc the same. Has lmd several conversations witli Mr Baird, who objected to some of the items for advertising, bags, &c., and they were knocked off.

A lengthy investigation of accounts,which seemed to be very much involved, was gone into, and at the close of Mr Baird’s evidence the case was adjourned until next day.

Judgment for Plaintiffs. — C. Patterson v. E. and G. Dixon, £27 9s 4d, for wages; Pickwick G.M.C. v. P. Cosgravc, £G ss, calls; J. and J. W. Rountree v. Hector McKenzie, £3l 15s lOd, for goods and on a dishonoured promissory note ; R. S. Ledger v. O’Griifiths, £2B 10s sd, goods; A. Unthank v. Whan G.M.C., £49 17s Gd, truckage on the Moanataiari tramway; W. 11. Taipari v. Hector McKenzie, £26 Is, on a promissory note ; G. Fides v. J. Morgan, £1 10s, cash lent, to be paid by installments of 5s per week ; same v. Doran, £1 Is Bcl, to be paid at the rate of 5s per week ; J. Briton and Co. v. Star of Thames G.M.C., £27 18s Gd, balance of account for crushing ; W. n. Roe v. R. N. Dodd, £l6 14s, by confession, to be paid at the rate of £2 10 per month, less an amount already paid into Court ; J. Brown v. Whau G.M.C., £44 10s 6d, goods : Beveridge, Ritchie, and Miller v. Cambria G.M.C., £5 Bs, balance of account

for professional services ; W. Lloyd v. J. Hall, £5 for goods : tbe Court gave judgment for plaintiff for £1 15, and costs £2 19s. Fleming and Stevenson v. J. Hicks.— Mr Tyler for plaintiff, Mr Dodd for defendant. This was a claim for £IG Is 4d, for goods sold and delivered. The defendant pleaded a set otf, which was disputed as against the partnership. Judgment was given far plainttff for the amount claimed.

G. Dalziel v. R. On yon. —Mr Mac donald for plaintiff, Mr Tyler for defendant. This was an action to recover the sum of £lO, for the alleged wrongful detention of 13 sheep. According to the evidence offered on behalf of the plaintiff it appeared that the sheep had been detained for freight, amounting to 13s, and 4s 6d on an old account. The plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the freight, but objected to the other item. The plaintiff deposed that, in consequence of these sheep being detained be bad to purchase others at an extra price, and sustained damage to the extent now sought to be recovered. Ultimately ho got delivery of the sheep from Mr Onyon. The original 13 sheep cost him £1 0s Gd each, and had to pay at the rate of 23s for the others.—ln reply to Mr Tyler plaintiff said he had no mate’s receipt or document of anj' kind to produce to Mr Onyon. Mr Onyon did not. say to witness, “ You must come down and identify the sheep.” The sheep were half starved during their detention, and lost in weight and value thereby. Mr Onyon demanded Is 3d each for freight instead of Is, which was the price agreed upon.—The defendant deposed to tbe sheep coming from Auckland by the steamer ‘Enterprise.’ Never instructed anybody to detain the sheep until 4s Gd was paid as well as the freight. Told the boy who had charge of them not to lot the sheep go until witness had seen Mr Dalziel. Witness bad neither shipping note, letter, nor anything else by which he could tell that the sheep were defendant’s, and required Dalziel to come and identify them. He declined to come, saying he was busy in Court. The sheep were then put into the yard and fed. Witness then wanted Is 3d per head, and was ready and willing to deliver them upon identification. Witness got a lawyer’s letter from Messrs Macdonald and Miller about the matter on the 13th inst., and replied to it immediately that the sheep were delivered up. During the time the sheep were detained they were well fed, and watered, and were not at all deteriorated in value. This was four days after their arrival. Never detained the sheep for an old debt. Is aware as an old shipper that one freight cannot be detained for another. Randall Flamway deposed to the sheep being well cared for during their detention. Judgment was given for plainiiff for £1 15s. and £2 19s. costs. The following cases were adjourned until next Court day (Friday next) —Street v. Corlett, Warren v. Mann, Roe v. Bryan.