RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VI, Issue 303, 12 November 1873, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuesday, 11th November. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., 8..M.) Doxonie v. C7t«» Ah Sum. — His Worship delivered judgment for plaintiff for £50; costs of Court, £1 Bs.; and professional costs, £3 3s. Tonks v. G-rundy. — Mr. Copland for plaintiff ; Mr. Mouat for defendant. A claim of £9 ss. for bricks and cartage. Defendant pleaded not indebted. Defendant engaged one Kioscoe, a contractor, to build a house for him (defendant.) ~3toscoo was to supply both labor and material. Defendant introduced Koscoe to plaintiff, and said, "I have brought Koscoe to you to agree about the bricks." George Thompson deposed to carrying 2000 bricks to defendant, of which defendant took delivery. Thompson did so on account of an order received from plaintiff, and he (Thompson) handed plaintiff's account to defendant's wife. Plaintiff deposed to the statement of defendant that he (defendant) would pay for the bricks. The relationship which subsisted between the defondant and Roscoo, namely, that of contractee and contractor, led to the supposition that Roseoe was plaintiffs creditor for the bricks j but some of the chvumstanees of the case created great doubts as to tho party on whose shoulders the liability rested. The conclusion arrived at by an impartial review of the evidence, is that Eoscoo and Grundy were unsettled on the question of liability ; whoreas, plaintiff felt sure that defendant was his sole creditor, because ho stated in evidence bis dislike to have bu-iueas relations with Roscoe. But there is one thing the evidence seemed incapable of clearing up, namely, as to whether some of the impressions which may have colored a portion of the evidence were mere after thoughts, resulting from the inevitable absence of Roscoo, or impressions quite independent of the missing evidence of Koscoc. Henry William Coverlid, agent for plaintiff, stated,thathogot an order from Roscoe on defendant for the amount for bricks. Witness presented this order, which defendant repudiated. Roscoo was engaged to supply material — including, of course, bricks — to tho order of defendant, and if defendant had paid plaintiff for tho bricks, there was nothing to prevent Roscoe claiming payment also from defendant, thus compelling defendant to pay twice ; and this liability, probably, accounts for defendant's objection to pay plaintiff, an objection which gained force by lapse of time, aa the contract between all tho parties to it dates as far back as April last. After due consideration, his Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for £9 ss.'; costs of Court, £1 3s ; professional cost, £1 Is ; expcnßCs of witness, 10s. This judgment was arrived at by his Worship on the ground that the contract was not a collateral undertaking. There wore no other cases, and tho Court tlun adjourned.