Monday, 16th Oct.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 193, 19 October 1871, Page 5

Monday, 16th Oct.

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

M'Beath v. Francis. — Claim, Ll3. No appearance of defendant. Verdict for amount with costs.

M'Beath v. Heaps. —Settled out of Court.

Oonnack v. Humphrey. — Claim, Ll2, being amount paid to defendant in error.

Mr. M'Coy for plaintiff, and Mr. Copland for defendant.

This case arose' out of a case decided in the Court some week ago, when the present plaintiff had paid to present defendant the sum of Ll2, whereas he should have paid the amount to one Glendinning.

The plaintiff gave satisfactory evidence of the payment by him of LlO, and produced a receipt for same, but to payment of L 2 he could give no account. He had no recollection of paying the money, although he produced a receipt. Defendant pleaded a set-off of L 6, goods received by plaintiff lately.

Verdict for plaintiff, L 3 10s, and costs of Court

Humphrey v. Glendinning. — Claim, L2O 6s 6d," amount of goods and money received by defendant.

Mr. Copland for plaintiff, and Mr. M'Coy for defendant.

Defendant pleaded a set-off of Ll7 ss, being for labour done, and goods left in plaintiff's possession.

This was a case of a confusion of accounts, which required a considerable amount of skill and patience to unravel. After wading through the whole, and balancing differences, the Bench gave verdict in favour of plaintiff for the sum of L 8 3s 6d, with costs of Court. Immediate execution was asked for, as it was stated the defendant was leaving the district.

Munro v, Micliael. — Claim, L2O damages, for and on account of defendant's dog killing and worrying plaintiff's sheep ; and for taking away a cow and calf, the property of plaintiff.

Mr. Gooday appeared for plaintiff; defendant acted for himself.

Evidence was adduced shewing that defendant's dogs were seen after the sheep of plaintiff, and after a severe and lengthy cross-examination by defendant, he faiJed to shake the evidence of plaintiff and witnesses. (This cross-examina-tion was one of those lengthy and unmeaning exhibitions which frequently take place in Court, and the Bench must have the patience of Job to calmly listen to them, as they consist in great part of a mixture of repetitions, assertions, and irrelevant matter.) As regards the. cow, defendant endeavoured to shew that she had never been sold to plaintiff, that de-

livery was never given to him, and that he had not complied with, the terms and conditions of sale. The auctioneer proved that the cow was sold to plaintiff, but had not at the time complied with the conditions of sale, lie had since paid the sum of L 2 10s on account, for which he had given him a receipt. The- Magistrate, in giving 'judgment, stated that after carefully considering the whole of the evidence, he was of opinion that the plaintiff had proved that damage was doiie to his sheep by defendant's dogs. The witnesses were at one on this subject. As regards the cow, he was of opinion that she was the property of plaintiff. The moment the hammer of the auctioneer falls, the property, or the article, passes from the vendor to the vendee. (Here the Bench quoted the various legal authorities on the subject.) As regards the damages sought to be recovered, he was of opinion they were excessive — for the damages done to the sheep he would fix it at L 3 ss. As regards the cow, he would order her restoration to plaintiff, failing which, he would fix her value at L 5 10s ; would give plaintiff one day's wages, los, as a solatium for damages sustained, as he was himself the sole contributory to such damage by reason of non-payment of price ; failing payment, or delivery of cow, the usual steps to be taken. Defendant to pay costs of Court, three witnesses, and one guinea professional fee.