RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 157, 9 February 1871, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before W. L. Simpson, Esq.,JML, an,l Horace Bastings, Esq , J.JP )

Thursday, Feb. 2.

Gerdwood v. Hugh Clark. — No appearance ; struck out

Bryan O'Raw — Unsatisfied judgment

The Magistrate said — Judgment was given against you for costs, in the case of yourself against Donovan. You did not think proper to appear at the second hearing of your case ; you are now here to shew ma why the judgment of the Court should not be pronounced against you.

O'Raw said ho could only produce some children as further evidence, and lie thought he would .save expense by letting the case drop.

The Ma^isfrate said it was his own fault having to pay this money ; he brought a case without sufficient evidence to carry it through. Have you iiuy property the bailiff can levy on /

O'Raw said he had only a small quantity of delf, worth about 305., and offered to pay 2s. 6d . per week .

After consideration, the Bench allowed him to pay 10s. per week.

Herbert and Co., v. Blewett — for goods sold and delivered.

Mr. M'Coy for plaintiff ; Mr. Gooday for defendant.

Mr. Gootlay asked for an adjournment, in consequence of the unavoidable absence of the defendant, who was away on public business.

Mi\ M'Coy said he was instructed to press for judgment in this case, which was given for plaintiff ; judgment not to issue before Tuesday next.

Monday, Fwb. 5.

(Before W. L. Simpson, Esq., 8.M.)

C. Bryant v. W. D. Morrison — This case was partially heard on Monday last, and adjourned to this day.

Mr. Al'Coy appeared for plaintiff, and stated the case a^ follows : — Mr. Buchan, of Tuapeka Mouth, gave Bryant an ordur to paint and varnish a house for him. Bryant sent down materials as specified in bill of particulars for the purpose of doin^ so, but did not go down himself. Bryant heard the bailiff was in the house, b\it he did not sell the goods belonging to plaintiff. Bryant heard Buchan was painting the house himself, and using Bryant's paints, &c, for that purpose. Upon being spoken to by Bryant, Morrison agreed to pay for the goods, subsequently Morrison refused to, pay for them.

C. Bryant said that about the month of November, 1809, he received an order to paint a house for Buchau, at Tuapeka Month. I sent down goods for th.it purpose, as charged for. Afterwards I heard that Mr. Hall, the bailin, was in charge of the place. I told him not to sell the goods specified. It is the custom of the trade to charge for the area covered, not by the lb. or gallon. I heard that Uuchan was going to use the colors. F saw Mr. Morrison about it ; he said if they were using the colors in the house, he would pay me for them. I was satisfied with this, and allowed the colours to remain in consequence. .Sometime afterwards I received an or.ler for mure varnish, i saw Morrison again ; he said it would be all right. I have since presented Morrison with a bill, who tlmu said — I made some sort of a half-promise T would see you paid, but 1 shall not pay this amount.

Cross-examined by Air. Copland — I sent the goods down with the intention of doing a job of painting. Buchan is not the defendant in this action. The usage of the painting mid paper-hanging trade is to charge by the square yard. 1 should havo had the goods brought back again if Morrison had not said it was all right — he would pay me for them.

G. Buchan, sworn, said — J am a carpenter. In November, 1869, I gave Bryant an order to paint and paper a house for mo, at Tuapeka Mouth. Bryant sent down goods for that purpose. I subsequently became involved. The bailiff was put in my house. I sold my house to Mr. Morrison. After the sale, I told him the goods were Bryant's. Morrison said all right — I will pay Bryant for them. I told Bryant Morrison agreed to pay for the goods. Bryant said it was all right— l have seen Morrison about it. 1 used the goods to paint the house for Morrison. I was working for him at the time for wages. It was by Morrison's direction T painted and papered the house. I told Morrison Bryant wanted his money ; Morrison said he had paid him. By the Magistrate — Morrison was there on several occasions when the goods were being used.

By Mr. Copland — About four months after the goods were sent down, I had a conversation with Bryant about them. The goods were on the premises at the time I sold the place to Morrison. Mr Copland, at this stage, asked to have the case dismissed, on the ground that the original contract was with Buchan ; it was therefore absolulely necessary to have any subsequent agree ment with Morrison in writing. The Magistrate ruled against Mr. Copland on this point.

Mr. Morrison examined by Mr. Copland — I purchased the house from Buchan in Nov., 1869. I did not order goo Is from Bryant as in the list now handed to me. 1 purchased the property from Buchan and every thing movable on the premises at that time, for a valuable consideration. There were a great many things besides those mentioned in the agreement. 1 saw a part of the things mentioned in the bill of particulars. I never promised to pay Bryant for those article?. I put Mr. Arbuckle in possession of the place for me. Bryant's evidence is not correct. I never promised to pay him. 1 1 was not to my benefit the articles were used in the house.

By Mr. M'Coy— The house belonged to me. I saw the house after it was finished. I have had conversations with Bryant. By the Magistrate— l told Bryant 1 would not pay for them. Bryant had a conversation with me after Buchan's failure. Bryant asked me for payment. I recommended the quods to be returned to Bryant. I considered tlxe goods were mine when I purchased the property. I bought them with the rest of the thiiigs in the house. On a subsequent occasion I recommended the goods should be taken back, if Bryant could show they were his. The house had not been painted at this time. On a third occasion Bryant told me Buchan had used the p;unt. Bnchan was living in my house at the time — he was paid wages for working at the mill. I never engaged him to paint the house.

John Arbuckle — I saw the goods mentioned in the bill of pai*ticulars — they were on the premises at the time I was put in charge by Morrison. The bailiff never had those articles iv charge. I did not give 'orders to any one t > use any of the articles mentioned I was in charge about six or seven months. I did not order any goods from Mr; Biyant for Morrison.

Cross-examined by Mr. M'Coy — The goods handed over to ma were supposed ta belong to Morrison.

By fie Magistrate — I remetnbir the painting of Morrison's house at the time

I was manager ; it did not go vii under my direction. I did not like to interfere. I informed .Morrison the painting was going on. Mr. Copland for the defence urged that it whs quite clear Morrison became the owner of these goods under the agreement with Buchan. The learned counsel made a long defence, shewing the weakness of plaintiffs case for allowing so long a time to elapse before demanding payment, and arguing that no agreement with a third party could stand good, unless in writing. Mr. M'Coy, in reply, argued the paints were not included in the agreement as goods and chattels. The goods were vised in Morrison's house with Morrison's knowledge, and he did not stop it. The Magistrate remarked, he did not look at the case with the same focus as either the learned counsel. Buchan wanted a house painted. Buchan soon after became involved, and sold the hoxise to Morrison. The paints belonging to Bryant were in Buchau's house at the time. Supposing the goods to have been a horse ; it was ridiculous to suppose that ■would go Avith the rest of the property. Possession of these goods had never passed to Bnchan or to Morrison, not until the paint was put upon the wall by Mr. Buchan some months after when in Morrison's employ, takes upon himself to use the paints. The painting was going on, partly with Morrison's knowledge and consent ; therefore I give judgment for amount sued for, and cocta.