THE COURTS.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VI, Issue 299, 23 October 1873, Page 7

THE COURTS.

RE&IDEKT MAGISTRATE'S COURT,

, E: Hi. Cai'e^ Es% v R.M.) TfTESDAT^I^th October 1 Iforb&rti'anct Co-. ▼. TKos. Y&wng. — Jtudtment {or £2 9s. and coata oi Court, #». od, R SHU v. W\ Banting-.— -Thia was an action broughfcto recover the sum of £7,being the vahiie o£"%.horsesoldby plaintiff t©; defendanfci RobeFt'HilJs^depnsed'thatin June last defendant wished to- buy« a horse,, and wanted t» have it oa- triaU He- took; delivery of- the horse-, and' afterwards came to. witness and said he. had put the horse in the paddock. Told Mm he could'have two- or three montha to. pay it' in. He accepted the offer, and" asked if - witness had a^ second-Jtaod^ saddle. Bclendant asked witness if there- was a paddock to put the- horse- ii>, eatd witness suggested* th> paddocjt of -Mr-; Bamford, andr agreed; with him toJearftttke. horsa; there,, air 2b--per weak. The price, of the horse «aft,to>

horse since , Defendant subsequently aaid he did nut want the.horse. John Ticthener was present when the bargain was made. About a week after defendant bought the horse, he wanted to buy a secondhand saddle. John Tiothener gave evidence in proof of the salp, A. J. Banrford deposed that on the 6th June last, defendant arranged to paddock the horse at la. 6d. per week. He j also said he had bought the horse. Fqr the defence, Mr. M'Coy called the defendant, who deposed that in July last he took two collars, of Mr. Dixon's to Mr. Hills 1 shop to be repaired, and Mr. Hills offered to lend witness a horse, which he aocepted, and afterwards returned the horse to. Mr, Bamford's paddock. Spoke to Mr. Hills about buying the horse, and said that if he (witness) could get work on the railway, he wo«ld be glad to buy it, if they could come to- terms as to price and time to pay it. Never told Mr. Bamford that he had bought the horse ; nor did he ever speak to Hills about buying a second-hand saddle. Judgment for the amount claimed, with costs of Court, Mr, Gbodayfor plaintiff; Mr. M'Coy for defendant, 4. J. Bamftonb v. W. Bunting. — This was a auit for £1 9s. for paddocking the horse alluded to in the last case. The summons having been taken out in the name of Thomas, instead of William, Burning, the plaintiffs solicitor— Mr. Gooday— eleoted to withdraw the case, which was accordingly dona. R. Laflieader v, John Lawson.. — This was an action, brought to recover the sum of £13 17s. 6d., being the value of 300 bags, and £2£, the price of a chaff-cutter and riddle. . Mr. M'Ooy fop plaintiff} My. Gooday for defendant. Riohard Lancaster swore that in September, 1871., he bought of defendant a lot of bags, to be delivered at the Beaumont. He also, bought a ohafF-cutter and riddle, which were to cost £29. Had received the chaff-cutter, but not the riddle. The bags bought from Lawson had not been delivered. The Iwas. sustained by plaintiff; through not having the riddle was considerable. Wrote several letters to Mr,. Lawson about it, and expected him to ftt the machine up complete* The receipt produced is for the price of 300 bags, the chaff-cutter and riddle, with cartage, and 8. bags wheat* The case occupied the Court until a late hour, when his Worship decided to postpone his decision until Friday next. Vxwpsr v.. Memjn,.— Mr. Gooday for plaintiff ; Mr Mouat for defendant This was an action brought to, recover the sum ' of £50,. being amount of alleged damages sustained by plaintiff in consequence of the non-delivery of 20 head of fat cattle bought of defendant in May last, plaintiff having gone to Teviot to take delivery, and on arriving there found the cattle of defendant were, npt fox slanghtar- '■ ing, being only store Cattle. William Draper, butcher, Lawrence, deposed that in the month of May last, he bargained with defendant to buy 20 head of fat cattle, and pay at the rate of 205.. per, hundred for them. Oa the 2nd August feat, witness went in company with Mr. Burton to defendant's paddock, and saw some oattfa, which were only stores, and accordingly returned to Lawrence. On 4th August, he wrote to defendant offering him £3 ss. per head, being their value as store cattle. He replied that if he (Draper) did not take-delivery of the cattle before the. 6th, they would be sold at plaintiff's risk. There were between 40 and 50 head of cattle in the paddock, and out of that lot there were not six good ones. On the 26th July,, he paid '303. per hundred for- fat cattle to Mr. Lachlan M'Lean ; and the cattle bought of defendant would have been worth that to him (plaintiff:) The place where the cattle were was on Mr. Mervyn's farm. Estimated the loss through non-delivery of the cattle at £3 per head. Cross-examined by Mr. Mouafe — At the time witness bought the cattle, did not know "defendant was going away. A Mr. Ireland told; witness he thought Mr. Burton had charge of the cattle, and that Mr. Mervyix said: he would leave him (Ireland), an- authority to act for htm, bat that he had not done so. Jabez,Burto»> botcher, Tevk>t v depoped that early id August he accompanied the last witness tjp the farm, of defendant, ani pointed oafe to him a lot o£ cattle which, he belie*9dp,. belonged to, defendant. The cattle shown to plaintiff, Tsrere-only medium fat eattle-. Could, 'not has© selected 8 or 2J5- ushtch, could be called fair beef. The average price- lately for good fat cattle at the, Teviofc. bus. been about 20s. per: hunft*ed X Hhd boaghfc some of the ■sams- cattle from .defendant since August, :bufe could not call them good* fat cattle. - Ooss-examined by M*> Mouat.— There fare- several qualities of beef;, prime, medium beef; and store.. Understand .good fat c*fcile~to- mean prime.. Me* Mouat, for the defence, asked the Bench if there,, was any ease to-, answer, and after argument by Mr. Gooday, his Worship decided that there: was, and Mr. Monat then called Mr. Mervyn> who- deposed* that in May last he sold to- the plaintiff the, cattle alluded to, by plaintiff ; and told him that he would not be able to he on the. spot to deliver- them, but would appoint some one-to acfefer him. He- aabsequently^appoirtted Mr-, ©eorge Iceland to. act a& his .agent in the matter-. The., cattfe were sold on the sth July. Cross-examined- by Mr. Gooday. — Occupy t3O acrest of'laad',,. of which 80 acres, have been- cultivated. About 50 'head were iv the grass paddook*. and about 30 were running outside. Turned out on the run, the cattle- sold to. Draper shortly after they were* sold to Mm. On the 2nd! August, Mr. Ireland was only ■verbally appointed a* agent in the.transaction* . Robert M'Eimnaiey butcher-* with 15 years* experience-,, described the various _q«alitieSi as. prime* goody, middlings and inferior, A fortnight since-,, good fat cattle-could.be bought ait 20s-. per hundred. In August-, he wa* offered~good fat cattleat Oiuthta. and elsewhere' at 18*.. per l^andxedi Mr. Burton re-called by Mr- Moaat. - Wheo.- Mr. IXraper--' came for the>. eattle^ wifeues*-. sece<n.me£used- him to. g& to- Mr. Irelandf^ and l wen-t- with hjua,. hut Mz; Ireland wa^not at home-. Mir. Moiiaii for th**- defendant, asked! for ant adjournment to. enable him to- have M& Ir^LuMfo, eyidexwjft. tafeea, a^. the;

Teviot, but subsequently waived the demand ,- and his Worship considered that, as the evidence 'showed that Mr. Draper could have bought cattle at the same price as that to have been paid by defendant, ho would give judgment only for • the expenses of plaintiff and hia m?ui to Teviot and back, namely, *£o, with costs of Court, 11s., one witness, £2, and professional costs, £1 la.

Fbiday, 17th Ootobee. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R,M)B. I&ncaster v. J. Laivson. — His Worship gave judgment in the above case as follows :— The suit was to recover the sum of £48 10s. It is not disputed that the contract respecting the bags was that they were to be delivered at the Beaumont ; and there is no doubt that, upon the evidenoe, not less than 250 were forwarded to Evans Fla^ some miles short of the Beaumont, together with a chaff machine. It is also cl ear that this maohine was to have been delivered at the Beaumont ; but that the plaintiff sent a man and dray and took delivery at Evans Flat. It is also proved that the plaintiffs servant, at the same time, took 40 of the bags, and said he would not take more then, as the roads were veiy bad. It ia oontended for defendant that this waa no acceptance of the bulk. There is no, doubt the contract was not fulfilled when the bags were landed at Evans Flat ; but the plaintiff, by his servant, in what appears to have been within his authority, exercised an undoubted act of ownership over the bags in taking possession of part of them, as many as he considered the state of the road would permit of his carryings and I must hold that this was an acceptance of the bulk and a waiver of the contract to deliver at the Beaumont. There are yet 20 bag* unaccounted for, and I allow for them at the rate of 13d. each — £1 Is. Bd % Defendant admits that he has not furnished a riddle for the chftff rjOKehi©©, as agreed upon. The evidence as to the place where the- riddle waa to have been made and of the price paid for it has been very conflicting, and im~ possible ta reconcile ; bat the fact is apparent that the defendant failed tofurnish one, and I estimate the sum t'» be paid to plaintiff uu this, account at £12;— that is £9 as the price which both parties agree is about the value of making a riddle at the Beaumont, and £$ damage for non-delivery. Judgment is therefore for plaintiff for £ia Is. Bd. ; costs of Court, 28s. ; professional costs, 21s. > andexpenses of witnesses, £7 6d. LcVWeOil V. Lancaster. — .This wa» a claim for £2ft as price paid for a chaflPcutter and damages for non-delivery, and judgment was given as follows: — The question at issue is whether defendant was to deliver the machine at Tokomairira, or whether plaintiff" was to take delivery ■at the Beaumont. The evidence in thi* case is again contradictory. It appeared in a former case, upon transactions, which, were entered iirfco upon y*e^ aam©- day as the one now. sued upon, that tii» courses of business was for the seller to deliver tofr the purchaser, and there is a presumption) that the same condition would have boer* included' in the contract now sued upon.. This is sufficient to turn the scale in favor of plainstifE. Judgment for iJl3v; costs of Court, 16s. ; professional' costs, 21a.. Lawsmt V. Lancaster. — Thia waa another action for the prise of a. sowing machine and other gooda, amounting ta L 37 12b , and his Worship gave judgment for the amount admitted, viz. , JJ3 55. ; L26t .the price of the sowing machine ; costs of Court ; and professional costs, 2/ guineas In the above cases Mr. Gooday appeard for Mr. Lawson, and Mr.. M'Goy for Mr. Lancaster..