RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VI, Issue 306, 22 November 1873, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before B. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.) FbIDAX, 31st NOVEMBER. Hay v. Lancaster. — Mr. Henderson for plaintiff. Plaintiff is Matthew Hay, auctioneer, of Lawrence ; defendant is a settler at the Beaumont. The case was adjourned from the 7th of the present month. This case was one involving alleged breach of contract. Plaintiff stated tbat he was instructed by defendant to advertise a sale by auction in Januuary last, at the Beaumont. The sale, subsequently, was postponed to a later period ; and just previous to plaintiff commencing defendant s adjourned sale, defendant telegraphed to plaintiff instructions to postpone the sale, but, subsequently, the cattle in question were auctioned off, at defendant's request, by Mr. Wm. Hayes, auctioneer, at Lawrence. Plaintiff estimated his damages at £12. His Worship desired to receive corroborative evidence of the custom of the tradain reference to postponed auctions, but the^bnly witness on this head was the plaintiff, whose experience was limited to his own business. In the absence of this evidence, his Worship decided to give damages ,in accordance with the actual labor and expense incurred by plaintiff. Defendant contended that, notwithstanding the receipt of his telegram, he (plaintiff) should have been on the defendant's ground on the day of the intended sale, for the purpose of orally postponing tie same. The disputed question here ia : Was defendant's telegram intended as an instruction for the oral, personal, and local postponement of sale by plaintiff ? The case therefore hinged on the interpretation of tho phrase " postpone," plaintiff stating that he understood it to refer to newspaper advertising, whereas tho defendant evidently meant it to include oral postponement pronounced br plaintiff at the scene of the intended sale." Judgment for defendant for £4 4s ; costs of Court, £1 13s ; legal costs, £1 Is ; witnenses' expenses, 10s. There were no other cases. The Court then adjourned.