R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume X, Issue 3219, 1 June 1889, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

-■masteetonA-fbiday. '-:}■?>., (Before Colonel Jtoberts, K.U.), , ' John Hesaey y. Ole-Andersen and. Peter Hansen.,. Claim JBI2 12s,for; lOqus-of/flax delivered to defen- *{•:". ■daiitsat the ia'eof.lßs Cd per ton. Mr Bunny for plaintiff, Mr Pownall for defendantß; : ' '■■''■'& '■'■ ■'i Frank .Hessey gave evidence liiaflp---" tie was employed by his brothev to out the flax, that Hansen hati offered • 5s per ton for cuttihg,;,but ha'd afterwards, agreed to give.Gs per ton. He hadaeked Hansen to pay the amount s :duelbllis brbther,'but had refused to make'anyTsettlement'himself, and being iu his brother's employ, never <s£ looked to Hansen for his own money. A ~ ■ This witnesß"waß cross-examined and - {* re-examined as; to; .what transpired ~' between-him and Hansen, hut his 1 ' evidence went to show that he had , ,£ merely acted on plaintiff's behalf. '* [ .The evidence of the defendants • snowed the flax .oujter* had beon^ ' paukat the rata of_ss and fis per ton for their labor, but plaintiff declined 1 reoogn'ising this payment; Judgmont w $ for £3 sb, and costs £Blssi.\ 1 165,-being;tke value of* hogshead of ' beer.M" ' !?■ ' Mr Pfpall for plaintiff, and Mr Beard for defendant.

Plaintiff deposed that an order for a hogshead of beer to, be delivered to.>"■■ ;i defendant, "came to him' about tliSk, / fourth of March, and the beer waaw duly delivered by bis man., • ; In cross examination plaintiff said tbe bder was his until delivered to ' ■■>, defendant. It did not belong to Mr ■', . Parsons at tho time of tho delivery. . Charles' Witt depose } to having delivered the beer, There were ona ' or two liquors drank on the strength; of that being the first beer delivered by Mr Tuck. "-. .;'. . Cross examined by Mr Beard: Mr Tuoktook possession of tbe brewery on Ist March.. Tbe stamp was affixed by Mr Tuck. To the Bench: The beer was brewed before Mr Tuck took.possession. ' Nicol Stenbouse deposed that he booked the hogshead of beer to Mr 'p>. Blkins at the timo it went out.. He &\ - bolioyed Mr Tuck to be the owner of . the brewery at the time. The beer had been entered as Mr Tuok'a iu the customs' book » . i ■ ToMvßeard: He could not"dig-jjp' tincllyany to whom tho order had.;/ originally been given. Mr Parsonjb' be believed, had given'the. order, 3sr-; : was not aware"whether the ordor was '.'■ given to Mr Parsons before; ,'the . ' brewery ehaiiged hands .or not." He ■ r could not ;say that the order was' ;■■: given.on 28rd February \ "it'-would be : impossibloAtp'remeniber every order - that . Ke-exai|inel: : JWitness had made;, ? . the entry ifj;theiCustoß.book;::: Mr : ; Tuck liadprchased • the;' stamps for y ■ the hogstaad. 1/ partioaldr - : v- ; one of a? brew that I had'been nwde;^. before the 28rd February, but sholddpji; i think-that it wasnot. -All: tbo beer-.-;. J • left by^MrParsons badbeeu sold ; by''^l I Mr jjt.Tuolt,-.. who •'•had:!, been oharged :■'" with them in the Customs,". '•■: '■;'■■■;. ■. ■:.:"

*To tbo Court: The hogshead . delivered to plaintiff was one that 4 haoeen delivored over by Mr Farsons. v "' '

Mr Beard submitted that there must be a nonsuit, as not sufficient evidence had been brought to show that the beer had been ordered; He put in a receipt to show that the beer had been paid for to Mr Parsons.* Mr Pownall pointed out that Jft receipt might be for any cask of I^L Nonsuit point over-ruled. ,^^^

Alfred A. Elkins deposed thatiie gave Mr Parsons an order for three hogshoads on the 23rd February. Two were delivered then and the third on the 4th March. He saw Mr Parsons sinoe aud gave him a ohequo for tho amount. Cross-examined by Mr Pownall : When Mr Parsons saw Him he told ' him that he had completed tho order, •- and ho paid him accordingly. Ho could not Bay to whom the beer had belonged, This,, completed tho case for the defence. Plaintiff was nonsuited.

Mr Beard applied for'oosts for defendant. Counsols fee of £1 Is allowed.