RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 547, 26 August 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

(Before J. Giles Esq., E. M.) Tuesday, August 24. M'Connochie and Thomson v. W. C. Graham.—A claim for the value of a quarter of beef. The plaintiff Thomson only appeared. The defendant was represented by Mr Tyler. The plaintiffs are butchers at the Caledonian Terrace. The defendant was a 1 so a butcher there about fifteen mouths ago. He received from the plaintiffs a quarter of beef, promising to give another in exchange. The statement for the plaintiffs was that he had not done so, and they sued for the value of the meat at the rate of 9d per pound. The defendant put in a set-off for a sido of beef at the rate of 7d per pound. The only witness called, named Wardrobe, was for the plaintiffs, and he related tho circumstances under which the meat had been procured, and under which the side of beef had been delivered or sold _ by him to the plaintiffs. The Magistrate considered that the evidence as a whole was in favor of the defendant, and gave judgment accordingly, with costs. Dennis Quigley v. Samuel Anderson.—Mr Tyler appeared for the plaintiff ;_ Mr Pitt for tho defendant. The parties were in the employment of Edward Dowd, a dairyman on the south side of the Buller "river. Dowd took three chances in a raffle for a gold watch at the Empire Hotel, and disposed of two of the chances to the plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff won the watch, and paid Dowd 10s for the chance, and 15s which had been spent on the occasion. The history of the watch from that moment was thus related by one of the witnesses:—" After he won the watch he took her home and hung her up at the head of his bed. She remained there. Anderson took her out sometimes, and Quigley told him he should not take her out into the bush, as she wasn't fit for that sort of work. I think he got her broken once, but he mended her. Quigley went to Addison's Flat. Anderson continued taking her out, and I consulted with myself if Quigley gave him leave to take her out or not. I asked him for to give her to me, but he refused." Subsequestly Quigley asked for the watch, but Anderson said he " would either give or take on her." Quigley asked what he meant, and he replied that ** that was what he meant, and he could summons him if he liked." The fact was that Anderson held that the watch was common property, as there had been an arrangement that, if won, it should be played off for between the three. The only evidence on this point was Dowd's. He stated that between Anderson and him there was

an understanding that they should play off for the watch at cards, but he also stated that there had been no definite agreement between him and Quigley on the subject. Anderson's statement was that on one occasion Quigley distinctly said that he " would sow off for her," but Quigley denied that he ever agreed to do anything of the kind. (What the phrase exactly meant was not explained to the Court.) The Magistrate considered that there was not sufiicient evidence of a contract between the parties—such a contract as would make Quigley responsible to the others for the watch, if he had retained possession of it—and, in the absence of any " playing off," he held Quigley to be entitled to possession. Judgment was given for the plaintiff, with costs, and the watch was returned.