RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 681, 29 November 1867, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before G. G. FiteGerald, Esq., U.K.) Tuesday, November 28. Druhk and . Incapable. — Louisa Woods was fined 10s with the alternative of four-and-twenty hours' imprisonment in default of payment. Drunkenness. — David Thomson was fined 10s with the option of twenty -four hours' imprisonment. Thomson was further charged with destroying the wa-~ terproof of the constable who arrested him ou the charge of drunkenness. He was fined 10s and ordeivd to pay L 2 for the property destroyed, or to he imprisoned for four days in default of payment. Disobeying a iSummons. — William Hazlohurst had been arrested by the police on suspicion of being a person mentioned in a warrant against a person issued by the Magistrate at the Wainiea against a person named Barry, for disobeying a summons. At the request of the police (it appeared that Hazlehurst was the wrong man), he was discharged. CIVIL CASES. J. Reid and Co v. Moran, v. Meers — Balance due for timber supplied. Judgment for L 25 5s and costs. Matthew Edgar v. Dr Beswick — Mr Button for the plaintiff, Mr Harvey for the defendant, Plaintiff sought to recover from the defendant L 27 for forming the footpath in Sewellvstreet, and LI 16s for six loads of gravel at 6s per load. Tv this case Mr Button said he would take a nonsuit. The plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited with costs. Shappere v. Gi-eer — Mr South for the plaintiff, Mr Button for the defendant. A claim for L 25 for a diamond ring. Solomon Shappere deposed that on the 16th November the plaintiff came to his shop with Mrs Charles. Witness' son was present. Mr Greer was shown a diamond ring. Mrs Charles tried it on. Mr Grecr asked witness to take something off the price of it (L 25) for cash. He counted out either L 22 or L 23, and remarked that he had not enough money on him to pay for the ring. Witness said, "Never mind, another timo will do. 1 ' Mrs Charles took the ring away. On the 20th inst. Mrs Charles brought him a cheque for L2O. Witness refused to take it. She afterwards returned with Mr Alfred Cleve. Mr Clove told witness he had bettor take the L2O, as that was 'all the ring was worth. He added that Klein had offered them a similar ring for L2O. They left the shop, leaving the ring with him. He afterwards saw Mr Greer on the matter, who refused to give more than L2O. Witness expressed surprise at tho action the plaintiff had taken in the matter, but said rather than take the matter into Court he would split the difference and take L 22 10s for the riug. Witness sent tho ring to Mr Greer's house, but it was sent back to him on the following day. Witness sent the ring to Mr Mendelshon's shop, arid afc the same time wrote Mr Greer, informing him that the ring had been sent there afc his risk, and referred him to his solicitor, Mr South. — Crossexamined by Mr Button— Witness told Mr Greer, rather than have any bother he would split the difference. Witness did not offer him the ring for L 2 2105. He said he was short of money, aud rather than have any bother about it he would take L 22 10s. Mr Alfred Cleve was not present when the ring was bought. Witness did not leave the ring at Mr Greer's offica ; he took it away with him. — Philip Shappere deposed that he was a son of the plaintiff. Witness was present when Mr Greer bought a diamond ring for L 25. He counted out either L22or L 23, and his father said, "it does not matter, Greer can pay me again." Witness' father told Mr Greer the prico of tho ring was L 25. — Cross-examined by Mr Button — The money was in sovereigns ; thero were no notes. Witness counted over the money at the same time as Mr Greer did. He Las had a conversation with his father as to tho amount of money Mr Greer counted out. That was after Mr Greer left the shop. He has not spoken to his father on the matter since. — Mr Button called Mr Greer, who deposed that on the evening of the 16th. inst., witness went to Shappere' s shop with Mrs Charles to pay for a clock. He showed him some rings. Witness offered him the ring for L2O. He said the price of it was L 25, but as he was anxious to make a customer of witness he would let him have it for L2O. He added that he had refused L 23 for it. Witness replied that he should have accepted the offer. He witness counted over either Ll6 or Ll7 in gold or silver. Witness offered him Ll9, and remarked that it would only be a discount at the rate of five per cent for cash. Witness afterwards sent the plaintiff a cheque for L2O. He afterwards saw the plaintiff in his office. Plaintiff then offered to sell the ring for L 2 2105, but he refused to take it. The ring was afterwards sent to witness' house with an account for L 25. Cross-examined by Mr South— Witness did not remember asking plaintiff the price of the ring. Mrs Charles tried the ring on. The plaintiff never asked him L 25 for the ring. L2O was the price plaintiff said ho would sell the ring for to witness. Mrs Charles took the ring away. She kept it till Wednesday. Witness did not anticipate that plaintiff would raise any objection as to the price, otherwise he would have returned the ring before. Witness met Mrs Charles

and Mr Alfred Cleve in Klein's shop. It was then that he heard that plaintiffasked L 25 for the ring. Plaintiff' did not say anything about the price of the ring being L3O. Re-examined by Mr Button — The first demand that was made for L 25 was when witness received the bill with the letter. Mrs Charles deposed that on tho 16th inst., accompanied by Mrs Greer, she went up to plaintiff's shop to pay for a clock. Witness was present when Mr Grreer purchased the ring forL2o. He counted over either Ll7 or LlB in gold and silver. The following Wednesday witness went up to plaintiff's shop and handed him a cheque for L2O, which he refused to accept. He said L 25 was the price of the ring. Witness left the ring at the shop. She afterwards saw the plaintiff in Mr Greer's office. Ho then remarked to Mr Greer that he would take the ring back, but he did not wish Mr Greer to suppose that he wanted to extract five pounds from him. •He then offered to sell the ring for L 22 10s. Mr Greer replied there is no harm done, you have got your ring back again. The plaintiff's wife afterwards brought the ring to Mr Greer's house and left it there. Cross-examined by Mr South —Mr Greer did not count over L2O in plaintiff's shop. When plaintiff asked witness for five pounds more she asked him what he meant. — Alfred Cleve deposed that he accompanied Mrs Charles to the plaintiff's shop. Mrs Charles tendered the plaintiff a cheque for L2O, in payment of a diamond ring. Plaintiff asked for L 5 more. Mrs Charles asked him what he meant. She said plaintiff had better take the L2O, as that was all she would give him. That was the price at which Mr Greer had purchased the ring. Plaintiff refused the cheque in payment of the ring. He then replaced the ring on a velvet roil.— Crossexaiiiacd by Mr South — Witness was no (Tasked by anybody to accompany Mrs Charles to plaintiff's shop. Mrs Charles told plaintiff Mr Greer had bought the ring for L2O. Plaintiff said he asked L 25 for the ring, and produced his book. — Judgment was given for tho defendant with costs. Sullivan v. Dee. — Mr Button appeared for the plaintiff, who sought to recover from the defendant the sum of L 33 10s., being Ll7 10s for seven weeks' wages at L 2 10s per week, and Llo damages for wrongful dismissal. A medical certificate was handed in, to the effect that the defendant would be unable to attend the Court for the next ten days or a fortnight. Tho case was accordingly adjourned till the 12th of December. Tait Brothers v.Spragg and Coleman. — Mr Button for the plaintiffs, Mr South for the defendants. An action to recover the sum of LSO, the amount of a promise sory note payable on demand. Alexander Tait deposed that the signature to the promissory note produced was that of the defendants. It was for cash lent, Cross'examined by Mr South — The money was a loan. It was not advanced as part payment of a contract for raising the Elizabeth. No money has been paid on the contract. Both the defendants were present when the money was paid. Witness consented to allow the money he advanced to stand over till they had completed their contract, but he added that he could sue upon the promissory note whenever he thought proper. Mr South moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that the consideration of the promissory note was the part performance of a contract. It was a proper payment. His Worship stated that he would require evidence to that effect. Mr South called Henry Spragg, who deposed that they asked the plaintiffs for money to pay the men off. Theplaintiffs gave him a cheque for LSO. He signed what he thought to be a receipt for money ; he did not know it was a promissory note. (By the oourfc — Can read and write). The following day witness had conversation with one of the' plaintiffs. He told him that the money was advanced on account of the work done, but that he held a promissory note of the defendant's, which he could sue upon at any time. Cross-ex-amined by Mr Button— The contract is not completed. This closed the defendants' case. His Worship stated that the contract the defendants had entered into was to raise the Elizabeth for LIOO. The whole risk is with them if they fail to carry out the contract they cannot recover one penny. As to the defendants having signed the promissory note believing it to be a receipt, it was their business to find out what the motive of the document was before they signed it. They could read and write. The plaintiffs sent them the money as any other persons might have done, to assist them in carrying out the work they were engaged in, and in consideration of the money advanced them they had given the plaintiffs their promissory note for LSO, the amount advanced. Judgment was given for the plaintiffs with costs. The Court was then adjourned till eleven o'clock on the following day.