RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT,

West Coast Times, Issue 134, 21 February 1866, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT,

TorsDAY, 20th Febettaiit. (Before G. G. FitzGerald, Esq. , 1UI. )

Larceny. — William Taylor, who was brought up yesterday on a charge of stealing timber, was to-day discharged as the owner of the property could not be found. Civil Cases.

Boylan and Cullcn v. Phillips — In this caao, as tho defendant had been served out of Hokitika, and tho summons had not been returned within the time of hearing, His Worship ordered another summons to be issued, and the date- of hearing to be six weeks from the present time. Pratt v. Garvin and Thompson — An action to recover £90 for demurrage of the schooner Three Sisters. Mr. Oakes appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. O'Loughlin for the defendants. Mr. O'Loughlin argued that the "barter parry produced was not valid,

..o thero was an interlineation, which was not initialed. His Worship said ie »oulu tuku n iiole uf tho objection. Thomas Pratt deposed that ho was a merchant, and said the charter party produced was oigned by him and by Edward Reeves, as agent for Garvin and Thompson. Edward Reeves mid ho wa3 a merchant, and had signed tho charter party produced, as agents for defendants. By Mr O'Loughlin : Witness had received special instructions from the defendants to sign any charter party recom- j mended by Captains Robertson and Lees. By tho Bench : The interlineation was made before the document was signed. Had been authorised by Mr Garvin personally, before _ the document was signed, and afterwards had received a written authority. By Mr O'Loughlin : The charter party was assigned to Mr Throckmorton by Mi 1 Pratt's consent. By Mr Oakes : Witness could not recollect the exact date upon which the defendant's interest in the charter party was assigned to Mr Throckmorton. He had met tho plaintiff and told him that defendants had transferred their interest, and plaintiff then said he was glai of it. Thomas Pratt, on being recalled, said that the Three Sisters commenced taking cargo on the 11th December last, which could be proved by the log book. Mr O'Loughlin objected to the log book being put in as evidence as to charter. Mr Oakes said the date could be ascertained by reference being made to the log book, as in it the captain had entered every transaction which took place in connection with the schooner. The Bench decided that the log book should not be received. Examination continued : Witness was sure the taking in of cargo commenced on the 11th December, and was finished on the 23rd of that month. Ten clays were allowed by the charter party for loading, and tin's time was exceeded by two days. The Three Sisters was ready to sail the next clay, but was not towed out until the Ist Januaiy, and this increased the time of delay by eight days. Mr O'Loughlin submitted that the document which had been produced was not a deed, but merely a memorandum of charter, and said his clients were released from all responsibility in the matter by their interest having been assigned to 'Mr Throckmorton. Examination of witness continued—- The Three Sisters returned from the Grey on the 22nd January, and that increased the demurrage to eighteen" days. The amount sued for had not been paid. By Mr Oakes : Witness had never consented to a transfer being made to Throckmorton. By Mr O'Loughlin : Reeves had loaded for the defendants, -not for Mr Throckmorton. It was the fault of the [charterers that the vessel had not been towed out when ready, as they were bound by tho charter party to do this. Mr Reeves did not tell witness that tho defendants' interest in the charter party had been sold for LlO until tho 29th December. Witness had never offered to settle the matter for L3O, but Garvin told him he would give that sum to settle, when witness said that if the ofi'or were increased by LIO, ho would take it. Andrew Atkins, who said he had been a seaman on board the 6ohooner Three Sisters, corroborated the plaintiff's evidence as to the time taken up in loading, and as to the datos of the vessel sailing to and returning from the • Grey. Mr O'Loughlin then ad' dressed the Bench, andsaid it was very evident to any one reading the charter party, that only 2 days demurrage could be claimed, as the loading was completed in twelve daysandjthe char-

ter party allowed ten days, and no provision was made for the time during which the vessel was lying in harbor, the time of loading only being mentioned. Mr Oikes was of opinion that the charter party allowed a claim to be' made for demurrage after the vessel war, loaded provided it had been detained by the defendants in the harbor. The wording in the document might he vague, but no doubt could exist as the time of detention altogether being meant. Mr O'Loughlin remarked that the vessel might have been detained by had weather, but was quite certain that the time for loading only was specified, and therefore the plaintiff eonld recover but for two days' detention. His Worship remarked that the charter party was vaguely worded, and he could go beyond what was specified in writing, and should therefore give judgment for plaintiff, for LlO and costs.

Alcorn and Co. v. Nees. — An action to recover the value of a case of hams. Mr O'Loughlin appeared for the defendant. This case had been decided by the Bench some time ago, and this was a re-hearing of it. Alcorn deposed that he had received a case of hams about the beginning of March last from the" Captain of the Triumph, who said it was for him. Mr Alcorn had not at this time received a bill of lading. Mr Nees afterwards called on liim and said that the case of hams was for MrHartman, and took it away. Plaintiff had afterwards to pay the shippers for the hams, and told them at the tune that Mr N"ees had taken them to Hartman. Robert Wright, a storekeeper, said he had been in the employ of Messrs Alcorn and Co., and recollected taking a case of hams out of the water near- the wreck' of the Triumph, and being told by Mr Houghton to take the case to Messrs Alcorn and 00., as it was for them. Robert Nees deposed' that he had chartered the Triumph to go to Havelock, and on the return of the vessel all the cargo was delivered but two parcels which he had asked the plaintiff to store, but he refused, saying he had not room to store them. The plaintiff afterwards came to witness and said he wished a case of hams could be found which should have come to him. Witness

then said that a case of hams had been broken open and used by the seamen and perhaps these had been the hams the plaintiff was inquiring about, and -witness then advised him to sue the seamen. His worship said thathe saw no reason for altering his former decision and should again give judgment for tho plain* tiff. Periman and Co. v. Cameron. — His Worship said that a re-hearing of this case would be heard on Tuesday, the 27th instant. Cas9ius and Co. v. Patterson. — An action for £7 12s. 6d., balance of money duo. Judgment by default. Britton v. Eowe. — A claim of £7 14s. 6d., for goods sold and delivered. Judgment by default. Hirsch v. Globiz. — An action to recover the sum of 14s. 6d., for goods sold and delivered. Judgment by default. Marshall v. Anthony and Co.— A claim for £5 Bs. 9d., for work and labor done. Judgment by default. Mileage not allowed, as summons was served by the plaintiff. . M'Lean v. Pole and Co.- Mr Campbell appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Macgregor for the defendant. An action to recover amount of bill of exchange. The plaintiff said he had received the bill produced from Mr Barrett, who had accepted it for the defendants. The bill had been presented for payment in the usual way, and was returned dishonored. He had afterwards spoken about the bill to Mr Pole, who then promised to pay it. Mr Macgregor said that defendants had executed a deed by which they had assigned their estate to trustees for the benefit of creditors under the Debtors' and Creditors' Aotj and therefore put in a plea in abatement. The plaintiff could claim his dividend with the other creditors/but nothing more. The Dunedin Bench had, under the 23rd section of the Act, /vhen -a deed , of assignment had been, executed, given the assignor an interim protection! order for twenty-eight days, after which tinie, if the insolvent had complied with the 23rd section of the Act, and creditors ,of the usual number and amount had signed the dee.l of assignment, then the interim order became a final order. The defendants ia this case had made all their property over to trusteer who bad taken po-sessior-- c* i'_ ->t1«- *V Act of 1562, and the amended Act of October, 1865, and the defendants now claimed the u»ual protection for twenty eight days. If at tbe end of that time the defendants should fail to obtain a sufficient number of creditors to sign the deed, then the plaintiff could bring his action on the bill of exchange. Mr Macgregor was then sworn, and proved that Mr Pole had signed the deed in his presenflt. and that the trustees had taken possession of Hie property. By Mr Campbell — The deed was signed on the 17th instant The schedules were not attached at the time, but were lying on the table. No creditor who had been asked to sign had refused to do so. Mr Campbell submitted that his client was entitled to a verdict on the bill, and said an interim order of protection could not be given to the defendants. His learned friend had put in a plea in abatement, and it for him to prove that creditors to tho number and in the amount specified in the Act had consented to the estate being assigned ; and as this could not be done, he claimed a judgment for the plaintiff. His Worship said he should adjourn the case until the 13th March, so that he may take the opinion of the law officers on the point in the meantime. Elder and Miller v. Shannon — Judgment by default.

In seven oases no appearance was piit in by either plaintiffs or defendants. The Court then adjourned until 11 o'clock to morrovV morning.