RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 450, 9 January 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Friday, Jais". 8. (Before J. Giles, Esq., R.M., and S. Thorpe, Esq., J.P.) Susau M'Arthy was charged with having been drunk and disorderly. Constable Williams stated she was brought to the Camp by her husband and another man yesterday evening in a state of intoxication. "The defendant asked their Worships to let her go home. She stated that she had only two glasses of beer, that she saw her husband drncing with another woman in a dance house, and that she took it very much to heart. "Wouldn't «his Worship do the same ?" She was fined 10s, with the alternative of twelve hours' imprisonment. She left the Court in charge of a constable, but, previous to doing so, stated that if she got her husband in a dance-house again she would make him dance. ASSAULT. James Nolan and John Haydn were brought up, charged with assault. The Inspector of Police asked for a remand until Saturday in consequence of witnesses not being in attendance. The prisoner John Haydn asked the Court to accept bail or try the case, as he wanted to go back to work. The Inspector of Police asked for heavier bail in Nolan's case than in that of Haydn, as the evidence he would produce was stronger against Nolan. Bail was taken in Nolan's case—himself in £SO, and two sureties of £25 each; Haydn—himself in £4O, .and two sureties, £2O each.

CIVIL CASES. Spence Brothers and Co. v. Tyler.— This was an action for the re-delivery of two parcels containing Masonic jewels which had been delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendant, "on bis assurance that he was authorised to receive them, and would comply with the conditions of their delivery." Mr Pitt appeared for the plaintiffs ; Mr Tyler appeared in the capacities of counsel and client.

The fccts of the case seemed to be that, by the brigantine Mary, owned by the plaintiffs, two small parcels of Masonic jewels were shipped by M'Callum, Neill, and Co., of Melbourne, to Eobert C. Eeid, Westport. On the arrival of the Mary in Westport, Mr Tyler, who had succeeded Mr Eeid in the office of Master of the Masonic Lodge, met Captain Gill and the agent ot the vessel, Mr Watson, and with them proceeded on board, when Captain Gill delivered to him the two parcels, and a conversation passed, the effect of which, according to Mr Tyler's showing, was that " all would be right" as to freight. According to Mr Watson's conception, it meant that " all would ho right " with regard to all conditions. 'Subsequent to the delivery of the goods, Mr Watson found, among the letters transmitted by the vessel, a letter s-tating that the goods were not to be delivered except upon the presentation of a bill-of-lading, or the payment of a draft. This letter was from M'Callum, Neill, and Co., and was written in consequence of a dispute as to accounts which had arisen between them and E. C. Eeid subsequent to their shipping the goods and forwarding the mate's receipt. Payment of the draft was refused, and the plaintiffs now sought recovery of the goods on the plea stated. Mr Tyler, after the evidence of Mr Watson and Captain Gill, applied for a non-suit. No bill of lading had been put in by the plaintiffs, and the bill of lading was the evidence of the contract. It was natural to show to whom the goods were to be delivered. If it was to the consignee, or his assigns, the consignee or his agent was entitled to delivery. But there were other facts which showed that he was entitled to a decision. It had been shown that a mate's receipt had been given, and that receipt had been forwarded by the consignor to the consignee, for whom he had acted. Under these circumstances, and with the goods delivered, the shipper could only sue for the value of the goods, not for their re-delivery, and the agent for the slvppers could do no more in that respect than his principal. Mr Pitt, while admitting that M'Callum, Neill, and Co. could not recover the goods, contended that the plaintiffs were not in the same position. As carriers, they were bailees, and were entitled to hold goods. The best test of the grounds of a nonsuit was whether Eeid, as the consignee, could sue the plaintiffs for their detention of the goods. Sup posing the letter, had been found, and the goods detained, he could not have recovered under any action of detenue.

The Magistrate thought it unnecessary for Mr Tyler to reply. His mind had been made up almost from the opening address of the couusel for the plaintiffs, because he thought at the time that the declaration, even on the face of it, scarcely made out a case. In fact, unless the evidence had gone beyond the declaration, he had thought a case could not be made out, and the evidence had not done so. The defendant was sued in an action ofdetenueto compel him to return two parcels which he had received. All that appeared was that he was asked if he would see that everything would be right. There was no evidence that this went beyond the usual understanding in these cases. In the absence of any special statement, he must hold it to apply to freight. Now he was asked to re-deliver the goods. The only ground on which they could have been detained by the plaintiffs would be ot the ground of some lien on them, but he was not aware of any principle on which a lieu could be setup after delivery. If there was any thing due on them, they could sue for it. Supposing this letter had turned up in time to prevent the delivery of the goods, the plaintiffs would have refused to deliver them. Then the defendant might have produced the mate's receipt, and demanded delivery. The plaintiffs would refused, being supported by their principals in any action they might take. Suppose the consignee sued them in an action of detenue for delivery, it was impossible to say whether he would recover. If such an action were brought, evidence might be produced by which the consignee would have been entitled to demand delivery. Admitting the possibility of this, it was

quite clear that there was no case here. It was asking the Court to assume that there was no evidence of the defendant's right to receive the goods. The admission of that possibility was quite enough to take the case out of Court. All the Court knew waa that, after the delivery of the goods, they were claimed back, because the defendant was asked to comply with something lie knew nothing about. The plaintiffs' case broke down entirely on its own merits, and it was not necessary to go into it any further. The plaintiff* aon-suited. Gilmer v. Trafi'er.—A claim of £ls 17s. Judgment for the plaintiff, by default, with immediate execution. Ereeth and Greig v. master of the Enterprise.—Mr Limbrick, for the plaintiffs, asked that the case should be adjourned until the arrival of the Wallabi, and this was done on the understanding that the plaintiffs should pay expenses to the defendant.