RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 877, 21 October 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Eridat, October 20. (Before J. Giles, .Esq., E.M.) Corr v. Ellis.—This was a claim for £7 7s 5d for goods supplied the defendant. Mr Pitt appeared for the plaintiff, who stated that the goods consisting of a box of tobacco and two gross of vestas, were delivered to the defendant in the ordinary way of business. The goods were supplied nearly three years ago, when the defendant resided in Westport. Ellis subsequently left for Charleston, where he had been repeatedly applied to for a settlement. The item £2 4s 2d was for three years' interest, at the rate of 10 per cent., which it was customary to charge upon overdue accounts. Credit was given for £L remitted by the defendant in stamps. By the Bench: I handed the defendant an account in Charleston for £6 13s 3d, and he replied that he had no money, but agreed to remit small sums as as he could. The charge for interest is purely a matter of custom. Robert Gray, storeman in plaintiff's employ, proved the entry in the daybook in 1868, which was in his writing. The charge of 22s per gross for plaid vestas would be considered a high price at the present time, but was the contrary at that time. By the Bench—lt is very unlikely that the charge of 22s had been entered in mistake for 12s. By the defendant: The entries in the day-book are taken from the waste book. Eor the defence, T. Q-. Macarthy was called, who proved that the delendant had rented premises from him in Charleston for several years past, i There could have been no difficulty in finditg him. The defendant admitted haing purchased a box of tobacco, but denied ever having received any vestas. He

had remitted stamps continually to the plaintiff, perhaps fifteen or twonty lota in all, and was quite sure he had sent sufficient to cover the cost of the tobacco. There might be ss. either one way or the other. He had never received any account from the day he got the tobacco, until he was summoned. Ho had made a practice of visiting Westport to purchase goods, but had never been spoken to about the account for the past fifteen months,

By Mr Pitt: It is twenty months or more since I had any communication with the plaintiff. The three credits for stamps in August and September are probably correct, but I sent more. I kept no account, I generally pay cash for what I get, and I left it to the plaintiff to keep a correct account between us. I have never seen a bill sent to Mr Salter of Charleston, addressed to Moses Ellis. I had a conversation with Salter since the summons, and he told me that the bill furnished him was for a different amount to that for which I am summoned.

His Worship was of opinion that the evidence for the plaintiff was more reliable and gave judgment for the amount claimed and costs, less the item for interest, which was struck out. An application for time was refused.

Shanahan v. Melville.—Claim for £1 5s for ale supplied. The defendant pleaded not indebted.

The plaintiff, who was formerly a brewer in Charleston, stated that he delivered the beer to the defendant and had not been paid. He had made numerous applications for the money. By the defendant: I had a man who used to collect empties. He did not receive moneys. I generally collected. I applied to you for the money on several occasions, once at the snooting gallery, again in Molesworth street in the presence of a man named Pringle, lastly a few days ago. You then and at all times admitted the debt, but stated your inability to pay. I compounded with my creditors, but my estate has not been in bankruptcy. The defendant in his evidence admitted having had several kegs of beer from the plaintiff, but they were always paid for on delivery. The plaintiff had never applied for the account until Saturday last, and he then told plaintiff that ho was unaware that he owed him anything. His Worship gave judgment for the amount claimed and costs.

Doyle v, Stevenson.—Claim £lO, being £4 for the value of tools unlawfully detained and £G damages from said detention. Mr Pitt defended. According to the evidence of the plaintiff, it appeared that he was a carpenter, and contracted to build a house for the defendant, with whom he had boarded and lodged. The consideration he was to receive was £7O for building the house, 25s per 1000 for supplying shingles, and 20s per day when otherwise employed for the defendant. During his employ the defendant sent to town for some tools on his (plaintiff's) account. Some time back they had a settlement of accounts, no cash being paid at the time. He then owed the defendant for board and lodging, sundry cash payments amounting to £3, and the value of the tools obtained from Westport, the sum of £SB 19s. The labour he had performed would not amount to a sum which would balance his indebtedness. He had given up working for the defendant, and had made a demand for bis tools, which the defendant refused to deliver.

Mr Pitt argued that under the Innkeepers Lien Act the tools could be retained until a claim for board and lodging had been satisfied. His Worship went over the cases bearing upon the matter, and was of opinion that none quoted would apply to the case before the Court. He could not consider that the tools bad passed into the keeping of the defendant in a manner that would make the Act apply. They had been in daily use by the plaintiff in building a house, which was not yet completed, for the purpose of the defendant carrying on business as an innkeeper. Under the circumstances he could not regard the plaintiff as the guest of the defendant and rule that the tools came into the keeping of the latter as an hotelkeeper. Judgment would be for the plaintiff for £4 for the value of the tools, the defendant having the alternative of returning the same, £3 for damage sustained through their detention, and £2 18s costs. Execution would be deferred for fourteen days.