RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume I, Issue 33, 26 September 1868, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before W. L. Simpson, Eaq., R.M.) Honda*, 21st September. breach of contract. Williamson v. Forsyth.— This waa an action in which plaintiff sought to recover the sum of £5 16s. Bd., for non-fulfilment of contract. Defendant pied not indebted. Mr. Keen appeared for defendant. Williamson, being sworn, deposed — T am a carrier. On Tuesday last, the loth instant, I met Mr. Forsyth near Chalmers' Halfway House. He engaged ino r to take to Tokomairiro about 700 sheepskins at 2d. per skins, from Mr. Sheath's yards. The skins were to be loaded on the lfifch, and delivered at Tokomairiro on the 17th. In term 3of agreement I went to Sheath's for the skins. When I arrived at Sheath's the half of the skins were on another dray. Sheath told me that if even I was lirat I should not have them. Sheath asked me if I could take the whole lot ; I said I could. 1 told Sheath 1 would summons Forsyth ; he answered that I might do as I liked. 1 had no back-loading in conaoqueuco of this disappointment. At this stage Mr. Keen asked for a nonsuit on the ground that the action was brought before the Court in a wrong form — instead of aueing for the amount of cartage, the action should bo one of damage, or breach of contract. If tho action were brought into Court in a proper form, possibly they might pay something into Court. The Court remarked that aa tho plaintiff was ignorant of the ruled of Court, and, moreover, did not take advantage of | any assistance, a non-suit would in all probability only result in bringing Mr. Forsyth into Court again. After some further conversation, the defendant consented to allow tiie summons to be amended, and the caan gone on with — 30s. being allowed as costa to defendant. The summons was then- amended under the 80th section of the llesidout Magistrate's Act, a3 breach of agreement. Williams continued - 1 have a man in my employ, named M'Grigor ; he is not here, ne was not with me at the time of making the agreement. I had another man with me ; he was ahead of me, and met Forsyth first. He was present when I arranged with Forsyth ; he is in attendance now. 1 don't know whether Forsyth spoke to Young first. Young was driving a dray. Forsyth asked mo to take the 700 skins. Ho never said there was no necessity for my going back without a load. He told me to call at Boult and Sutherland's, and that 1 might get some sheepskins ; he also mentioned Rae's and M'Pherson'a, and said I might call at any of those places and get skin 3. I was authorised to engage loading for Young aa well as for myself. took my own dray to Sheath's. When I came from Sheath's 1 told Young that Dale had got the skins. Defendant said he would : rather have them on a waggon if I could int take them all at once. I told him I I w:*s prepared to do so. Defendant said he would depend upon me taking them. I have a general power to engage loading fur Young, he being but a short time on tha roads, and unacquainted with the prices. I told Forsyth that I would be reponsible for the skins. lam bound to pay Young, but not having got the load he might favor mo. Isaac Young, being sworn, gave his evidence, but which, in many particulars, differed materially from previous witness, whereupon tlio Magistrate dismissed tho case, giving verdict for defendant £2 10a. costs. The Magistrate remarked to plaintiff that in any f uture- case ho mi^ht bring before a Court to beware as too n.'uch of that kind of thing, namely, equivocation, had been going en there already. It was I only- the other day he threatened to j punish oue for liko conduct, and lie was i I determined to put a stop to it. ! ASSAULT. Ah See v. White and Horn. — Claim, £20, as damages for striking and otherwise abusing plaintiff. It seems that the plaintiff was working at the foot of Munro's Gully, and the "defendants^ with other mates, have a claim at same place. The Chinaman wanted "to purchase the claim, and first offered £3 105. , afterwards £4 10s. ; subsequently there was some sort of an arrangement that £10 was to be the amount. At this time the whole mates were not present, but were sent for. One of tho mates proceeded to write an agreement, and the Chine3o went out and returned with the money. At this stage the whole of tho mato3 were present in a house belonging to one of them. The Chinaman plaoed his- money (£10) on the table. Ho was told they were not inclined to sell, and that he had better take up his money and~ walk. Instead of taking the money, he snatched at, and got possession of the partially-written agrooment, whereupon iftoo of the mates got hold of him, and got the document out of hia hands, and whitat one of them was holding him the other "mate" struck i him two blows on the' face, 'which caused an effusion of blood and a swelling of the face, whereby the plaintiff loat some few days, not being able to work. The evidence for the defence was nearly the same, with the exception that Horn swore that j he struck only one blow, and that it was in self-defence. Horn deposed that ho saw one of the Chinamon (mate of the plaintiff) take hold of a shovel, and as the Chinese were known to bo treacherous, the blow he gave was in self-defence. White deposed that the first blow was struck by Horn whilst two of them had a scuffle with the Chinamen. He (White) took the niSaey and gave it to the Chinamen, who threw it down. He gave it to him a second time ; subsequently the Chinamen walked away with the money in his possession. Other witnesses were in attendance, bat the Magistrate said he had had enough of evidence in this case. Ho remarked that he had "no doubt in hi 3 own mind that, an assault had been committed. The defendant, White, has given his evidenco in a straight-forward and candid manner ; but for tho manner in -which Horn has given evidance, my opinion of him is not favorablo. That there was some arrangement about the ' selling of the claim, was clear ; but "tome niisun-der3tauding-existed; and surely it did not require any violence to eject one Chinaman whilst there were nix Europeans present. It was a well-known fact that (me European oonld take his paxt'agitij»t

half a doaen of them. There socms to have been- no violence on the part of the China- 1 men, and the blow struck by Horn was ( unnecessary. They might have thrust him i out without a blow. . Tho Magistrate added that the amount of damage was fixed at an absurd amount. He would | Rot be inclined to give even a quarter of it. The Judgment <tf tlie' GbuYt was that Horn be fined £2 VJk. t etefe of Court, cost of one witness, and' ftaif the expanse ©f tlie interpreter— tho other half te> bo paid by plaintiff. Corporation of Lavrrcnca v. Robert Home — Mr. W. Hayes appeared on behalf of the Corporation as Collector of Uate3, and proved that Roberl Home of Dunedin was indobtod in two years f assessment, amounting in all to £5 10s. Verdict for the Corporation, with coat*.

Thursday, 24th Sept.

Lancaster v. Kirby. — Claim £26. Mr. Richards appeared for dafendant. Pled not irtdebted. The plaintiff's evidence was aa follows : — In November, 1863, at the time of tho Hindon rush, plaintiff was a whuleaalo and retail butcher. Kirby like many others wont to tho rush. When Kirby arrived, baing a butcher by trade, he bought tho premises of plaintiff, together with what boef was in possession. Tho shop with scales, weights, blocks, was valued at £10 ; the whole of the beof wa3 sold for lOid. per pound. The plaintiff agreed to supply the defendant 11'ith allthe beef he might require at that figure. Hia retail price for beef was 13. per pound. Ho might have occasionally sold a coarse joint for Bd. and 9d. per pound. At all events the body of beef netted Is. per pound. Cross-examined : There were no conditions attached to -the agreement. He never agreed to' supply tho defendant only, there was 110 such condition in the agreement. I never did sell meat at Bd. 9d. and 10J. per pound, except perhaps a coarse joint occasionally. The reason of my not having delivered the account before this wa3 that for a long time I was busy, but latterly hsiving gono out of business I had leisure to go into the Hindon books. Another reason I might give ia that then I had plenty of money, and I want soino now. My brother was my partner when I was carrying on business in Hindon. I have supplied you with meat since then in Tuapeka district. My brother had notliing to do with the Tuapeka business. Wu have had many settlements. lam a 2 >ftr ' :ner °f Kirby only in a mining claim. This has nothing whatever to do with my slaughtering business. The reason I nover asked him for the amount due when settling matters relative to the cl.viai was that they were two distinct matters. I have had some private settlements with him since. I paid him £5, but this was a matter belonging to claim, a bet I had mado with him relative to the weight of gold. Defendant being sworn, deposed : I recollect November, 1868. I went to Hindou on about tho 11th of the month. I saw Mr. Lanc&3tor there. He with others were busy selling boef to tho diggers. The prices he was charging were 81. 9d. and lOd. per pound. I swear this positively. I stood and looked on, and saw them pay the money. There were no other shop 3 in the place selling beef. Next day I saw Mr. Lancaster, I and we came to an arrangement, and 1 bought his stand, &c, for £10, and took ! all the beuf he had in the shop. lie agreed to supply me with beef at lQ2,d. per pound. There was a condition in the agreement to the effect that ho was to supply me and me only. After a day or two's experience I found that I was losing money, and I mentioned the circumstance tv Lancaster. I told him I would have to raiso,the price. He told me not to do so, and that he would make up the L'ss in the next lot of cattle. My reason for giving him lOiri. was that F was to have the Avhole^ef the cattle, that thon I might be enabled to raiso the price, and moreover bo able td serve tho butchers wholesale. I remained only eight day 3at the rush. I then left. I have dealt with Mr. Lancaster shicp, and had many settlements, and this balance was never mentioned. Ho owed me money on a) private transaction. ' .1 had to braca him up rather sharp before I got paid." The amount was £5, it was a bet on tho weight of gold. Cross- examined by Mr. Lancaster : I swear positively that you agreed to supply me and me alone. 1 stood and saw you sell the beef at Bd. 9d. and lOd. per pound, and more than that yon gave a gla33 of " gin " to every customer when ho paid you his account. I told you that as you were to supply other butchers it was a violation of agreernont. There was no written agreemens, it vra3 cierely a verbal one. I never saw beef in any other shop during my stay at Hindon. « w&3 there altogether about seven or eight days. The Magistrate remarked that he was satisfied as far as the evidence went, that the defendant had no standing in Court even by hia own showing. He tells the Court that Mr. Lancaster had agreed to supply him and him alone, and ho swears that during the wholo timo he was at Hindon he did not see a piece of beef in any of the other shops in the town, therefore if such an agreement did oxist Mr. Lancaster did not violate it. Again, when defendant tells the Court that upon mentioning tho 1033 he was sustaining, he says that Mr. Lancaster promised to mako it up to him when tlio next lot came in, but Mr. Kirby- did not wait a sufficient length of timo to enable Mr. Lancaster to do so, but before I give judgment I must have in Court the books kept by plaintiff at Hindon, and ateo plaintiff must prove as stated by him when carrying on business at Hindon that he had a partner. The case v/aa adjourned for fourteen days" to' enable plaintiff to comply with tho order of tho Court. -- j