RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 203, 14 May 1866, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before G. G. FitzGerald, R. M.)

Thubsday, May 10. In the following cases -heard this day, we deferred the full report which we now give: - Greenfield v. Ryley.— The plaintiff in this case claimed to recover the sum of

one hundred pounds damages, for breach of contract for the sale of certain premises, situate in Reyell-street, Hokitika, as well as loss sustained by the plaintiff in her' business by the non-fulfilment of the said contract. Mr South appeared for the plaintiff, ond Mr O'Loughlin for the defendant. Mr South called Mr Reuben Harris, who said he was an auctioneer and commission agent. Had been instructed by the defendant on the 12th of April to sell hia premises for £lfiO. On the Saturday following submitted three different offers to Doctor Ryley, one of which was an offer of £125. Requested Dr Ryley to allow that offer to stand over until Monday. Presented Dr Ryley with a contract note on the Monday morning, when he made some objeotion about my commiseion. Later in tho day presented him with a contract note, signed by himself as his agent, according to which he had sold Mrs Greenfield for the sura of £130, the premises situate in Revoll-street. Mr South here handed in the contract note. By Mr O'Loughlin : Was never told by Dr Ryley that he had .employed Mr M'llaffey. Asked Dr Ryley on Saturday to let the matter stand over until Monday, as he wai not in a position then to give him more than £125, and Dr Ryley would not take less than £130 cash. Dr Ryloy had consented, and in consequence he (Harris) had sold for £] 30. Joseph Moss, sworn — said a subscription had been raised by the Lodge of Freemasons in Hokitika, in favor of Mrs. Greenfield (tho defendant). Had consented to act for Mrs. Greenfield in the purchase of a house, aud had purchased the premises in Rcvell-stveet lately in the "occupation of Dr Ryley, from Mr Reuben Harris, for LI 30. Had subsequently called in Dr Ryley, for the purpose of getting possession of tho premises. Was told by Dr Ryley that Mr Harris was not his agent, and had not been authorised by him to sell the house. Had told Dr Ryley that he had purchased his premises from Mr Harris. Had tendered him Ll3O, tho price agreed upon between Mr Harris and himself, which ho refused to accept. By Mr O'Loughlin— Was told by Mr Harris that he had Dr Ryley's premises for sale, and requested him to offer Dr Ryley L 126 for them. I called upon Dr Ryley to get possession of tho premises. Was told by Dr Ryley that he had received my offer of L 125, but would not take less than LI 30. Mr South then called Mrs Greenfield — Had purchased sewing-ma-chines, and had intended to carry on her business on the premises purchased from Dr Ryley. I have not been able to work the machines since I have purchased them. Mr O'Loughlin called Dr Ryley, who stated— Had metMr Harris on tho 12th of April, as he was going to tho premises, in company with Mr M'Haffoy. Was asked by Mr Harris, in his shop, whether he would authorise him to sell tho premises. Had told Mr Harris that he had already employed an agent. When Mr Harris had presented him with a contract note noticed he had signed it as his agent. Told Mr Harris at that timo that he had Jnever authorised him to sell tho premises. /Had sold the premises after he had seen rMK Harris. By Mr South— l never appointed Mr Harris my agent. On tho contrary, refused to have any transaction with him. Mr O'Loughlin then called iMrM'Haffey, who stated that the premises had been placed in his hands, for jjale, by Dr Ryley. Had sold them for X 145. Mr FitzGerald said he would not give judgment in the case until next morning. Spence Bros. v. Burke and Co. — Mr. South appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. O'Loughlin for the defendants. It appeared the defendants had bought ten tons of flour at L 26 5s per ton, which they had not paid for, and had been re-sold by the plaintiffs at the risk of the defendants ; a survey having been previously held at a cost of £4 4s. Tho amount realised by the flour when ro-sold was £187 12s, leaving a balance of £79 2s. Mr South called Mr Spence, who stated that he had given M'Laiidress, Hepburn and Co. authority to sell the flour in question, which was then in Clarke Bros, store. Mr Hepburn sworn, said he had sold ten tons of flour, at L 26 per ton, to Mr Clarke (of the firm of J. L. and C. Burke.) Had obtained an order from Spence Bros, for the delivery of the flour. Had given the order to Mr J. Clarke. That Mr Spence had called upon them, and demanded a cheque for the amount. Had written to J. L. and C. Burke and Co., requesting payment, and received no answer. Subsequently received instructions jfrom Spence Bros, to re- sell the flour by auction. A survey had been held on the flour, and when it was re-sold, it had realised LlB7 12sclearjof all expenses. Mr Clarke (of thefirm of Clarke Bros.) said he was present when Mr Jas. Clarke examined some flour in '.his store, the property of Spence Bros. Mr, Churches was also called, and said he had held a survey on the flour in question, aud had found it perfectly sound and in very good condition. Mr O'Loughlin, for the defence, here addressed the Court on a ! nonsuit point, which was answered by Mr | South for the plaintiffs. Mr FitzGerald reserved his decision as to the nonsuit point.

Friday, May 11.

Drunk and Incapahle.— Matthew Smith and John Allison were find 10s. each for this offenoe, or in default 24 hours' imprisonment with hard labour. Breach of the Peace.— Joshua Houghton was charged with fighting in Revellstreet, on the afternoon of the 10th instant, and fined £2, or in default 4 days' imprisonment. Assaulting and Resisting the Police. —Joshua Houghton was also charged with assaulting the constable who arrested him on the last charge, and fined £5, or in default 14 daya' imprisonment with hard labour. Bbbaoii op Police Ordinance. — James Colton was charged with obstructing the thoroughfare, and finod 10a. Win. Hirst, charged with furious riding in Revellstveet on the 6th instamt, was fined £2. CIVIL CASES. Greenfield v. Ryley.— Mr FitzGerald, in this case, remarked that, without commenting on the evidence, which had throughout been very conflicting, he did not think if justified him, in giving a judg-

ment for the plaintiff, and decided accordingly^ favor of the defendant, with costs. . Spence Brothers v. J.L. and C.Burke.— Mr FitzGerald had reserved hia decision as to the non-suit point, and Mr O'Loughlin, for the defence, called Mr James Clarke (of S. L. and C. Burke), who said that he had bought the flour from Mr Hepburn, subject to (Mr Clarke's) approval ; had bought the flour as Butterworth's, and on comparing it with flour of the same brand in their own 'store, found it was of an inferior quality, and had consequently refused to take it. By Mr South : Mr Hepburn never gave him an order for the delivery of the flour ; did not examine more than one bag, and saw mites in the flour ; did not examine the flour beforo he bought ; had not sptken to Mr Hepburn about the flour gthe price of flour; had not fallen in the market wken he refused to take the flour in question. Mr O'Ltughlin then called William Edgar, storeman at that time to J. L. and Burke : Received an ordor from Mr Craig for the delivery of certain flour at Clarke Brothers' store; examined the flour, the subject of this action ; it was of an inferior quality. By Mr South : When he was shown the sample of flour, said it was of an inferior quality to that of the same brand in Burke and Co.'s store ; the flour was full of mites, A judgment was'given for the defendants, with costs, on the grounds that there had been no sale made, no money had passed between the parties, nor had any part of the goods sold been delivered; in fact, neither one of th« requirements had been complied with necessary to constitute a sale, under the 17th section of the statute of frauds. Mr South gave notice of appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs. Mr O'Loughlin made an application for a re-hearing in the case of Reid v. Thomson, which was granted by the Court, and the case ordered to be set down for hearing on Thursday the 17th instant. The Court then adjourned for twenty minutes, and, on resuming, the official enquiry into the cause of the wreck of the Maria was proceeded with.

Saturday;, May IS.

Lunacy.-— William Jones, brought up on remand, from the Bth instant, charged with being of unsound mind, was committed to the Lunatic Asylum, Christchurch, on [the medical evidence of Drs. Ryloy and Brendt. A similar charge was preferred against Jane Lyons, who was discharged on the evidence of the same two medical gentlemen. Larceny. — Frederick Symonds, was charged by Abraham Jacobs with stealing a meerschaum pipe of the value of 12s. Prisoner was discharged. The court was then adjourned until eleven o'clock on Monday, the 14th inst.

Credit.— For a nation to be largely in debt is, in the nature of things, much to its credit. Epitaph on a Bore.— He was not for a time, but for all day.