RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume VII, Issue 1058, 28 March 1873, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Tuesday, Mahch 25. (Before Joseph Giles. Esq., E.M.) . CIVIL CASES. Mailer v. D. M'Lauchlin —Claim for £1 12s b\l. Goods supplied. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount claimed and costs 9s. Corr v. Sbeldou —Mr lusher for plaintiff. Claim for £<L 7s Od. Balance of account. ISo appearance of defendunt. Judgment given for full amount claimed and costs 19s 6d. Suiaied Brothers v. S. and J. Skally —Claim for £'l7 Bs. Balance of account for goods supplied. Mr Eisher for plaintiffs. Tho debt was proved, and judgment given for amount claimed and costs £3 ss. Stitfc Brothers v. Cairns —Mr Eisher for defendant. Claim for £8 15s value of 4 cases of tinned oysters which defendant, as captain and partowner of the schooner Maid of Erin, had not delivered.

AloTC'Stitr, in evidence, stated that lie 'had received bills of lading and invoice of certain goods consigned by Conne], Watson, and Hogarth of Melbourne, including the four cases of oysters in question, and had paid freight and duty on the goods, baton the good;-, being .'landed at Westport the four eases of oysters were not forthcoming, and to replace them, Captain Cairns had offered four cases of lobsters, but which plaintiff had refused to take.

By Mr Fisher: The shipment consigned to our firm was in cases marked C.W.TEL, and with numbers running from 103 to 150. Offered to take the lobsters if .the numbers on the cases would correspond with any between these two numbers as shown by the hill of Jading. 'Our carter brought the cases to the store but the marks thereon were indistinct. I examined the lobsters, opening one of the cases and also cutting open a tin, but would not keep them. (Don't recollect telling Captain Cairns that .1 would have kept them had ithey been good. .He offered to take the cases back again to Melbourne, to exchange for the missing of oysters, but I took no notice of the offer, holding him responsible to give me the goods shipped as per bill of lading and ship manifest.

David Day, Landing Waiter, produced manifest of Maid of Erin, showing entry of four cases of oysters, but which were not found among the cargo, and also produced memorandum showing that four cases of lobsters numbered 316, 314,. 505 and 508, wero found in the hold, but not shown on the manifest.

By Mr Fisher: It is within the bounds of possibility that the four cases of lobsters wero shipped in mistake for oysters at Melbourne. ißy Alex. Stitt: I measured the cases.hut they are ten inches in excess of the measurement of the cases for which the entries were passed. Eduiond Labatte gave evidence as to having superintended the delivery of cargo, and receiving from Stitt Brothers's carter a receipt for tho four* cases of lobsters which wero taken from the wharf to their store, and afterwards, by some means which he could not explain, tho cases were carried to the transit shed, where the carter, Connelly, subsequently took a second delivery. John Corr, agent for the schooner, said that on finding out the mistake in the shipment of the eise3, he had advised the plaintiffs to ship them back:to Melbourne, because the captain was,not held responsible for the contents of any of tho packages. Tho Court held that the plaintiffs had sued the wrong party, and gave judgment for defendant with costs.

Carne v. Lewin —Mr <Fisher for plaintiff Claim for £29 is 9d. Goods supplied<on joint partnership account of the defendant and William Morris, an insolvent. Defendant denied the liability, and pleaded that ho never hail been a partner with Morris or became responsible for any debts incurred by him. Plaintiff gave evidence as to defendant and Morris coming to him for credit for work, and also at times paying hint money on their joint account, he giving them receipts as partners.

Thomas Field, ironmonger, deposed, that both Morris and defendant had obtained goods from him in connection with certain contract work. Had first opened an account against Morris, but one 'of the two, either Morris or Lewin, had, on obtaining a contract on tho Tnangaliua road, asked to have the account altered to the name of Morris and Co., and on such account Lewin had obtained goods ah. partner with Morris.

Christopher Brown, draper, produced hooks of account showing that ho had opened an account in March 1872 in the names of Lewin and Morris, defendant giving him tho two names. Subsequently Morris came for more goods and asked that the names should be transposed. Witness had supplied various goods afterwards, and had always considered the two men as partners.

By Defendant: It was your own proposal that the account should be first opened as against yourself and Morris. You have received invoices for goods from me, made out in the names of both as partners. 1 remember giving you, individually, on Jan. 18th a bill for £l2 5s 4d, made out to Morris and Lewin.

In defenco Lewin denied being partner with Morris, of whose transactions he said ho kuew nothing,

except that he had worked lor hirn on wages, and had occasionally been entrusted with money by Morris to settle bills and pay wages men on his account. By Mr Fisher: Got £4> per week wages. Don't know that my name was either on the tenders or the contract for work on the Charleston road. Did net put in a tender for any work on the Inangahua road with Morris. Never told the Provincial Engineer that I was a partner with Morris, or interested in his getting the contract money, beyond wishing to secure my share of it as wages. Don't recollect telling Carne that I was equal partner with Morris, and that we should probably want to borrow money to carry out the contract. The Court held that the defendant had got into a fake position, for if not partner, he had allowed parties with whom he and his alleged partner traded, to cousider that an actual partnership existed. It did not follow that because Morris's name alone appeared on a contract for government work, that no partnership actually existed between them. If defendant had not wished to imply partnership lie should have explained his connection with Morris, instead of allowing himself to be held responsible for their joint debts. The evidence given clearly showed that he had rendered himself liable. Judgment was given for full amount claimed and costs £5 Ss. WESTPOB.T WABDEN'S COUET Tuesday, March 25. (Before J. Giles, Esq., Warden.) Knight, Wall, and others v. Patrick Galviti and others, of Addison's Elat, miners —Mr Eisher for plaintiffs. Complaint as to interference with registered water rights of plaintiffs, and claim for £ls compensation for damages arising from such interference. Judgment for plaintiffs without damages. Costs allowed, £5 2s. Defendants ordered to reduce the quantity of water taken by them to such quantity as the five and a-half shares held by them would warrant, according to the quantity flowing in the race. APPLICATIONS. William M'Meckan and others— Special machine site, half an acre, at junction of Maori Creek and Mohikinui river. Adjourned. I{. Blackmore —Elood machine site GO feet, at Hatters Creek above Crappers machine. Eor tailing washing. Granted. J. Blackmore—Similar application. Granted. D. Maloney—Special washing site, GO by 50 feet at Mountain Creek, 800 feet from Carmody and party's tables, sixty feet. Granted. John Eahey and others Tunnel 3000 feet east and west, Wilson's lead, Waites Pahikis. Granted.