MAGISTERIAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2092, 18 January 1908, Page 4

MAGISTERIAL.

FI! I DAY. JANUARY 17. (Before Air. \V. A. Bhrtoii, S. M.) Bicycle-riding on Fool ]>al h.—Robert Uolil) was ('mot! 10s with costs 7s l'or riding a bicycle on a loolpnlh within the borough. Statutory 11 a It-holiday.—Richard S. Chilton was charged on the information of tho Inspector of Factories with having on tho afternoon of January 2nd, failed to close his shop at 1 o'clock. AH' J. AN . Nolan represented the Labor Department and Mr Stock the defendant. -Mr. Stock said that Mr. Chilton was away from Gisborne at tho time of the offence 'l'lie shop had been closed for half a day on the previous day and tho person in charge of the shop was under tho impression that that was sullieient to eompl- with tile Act. Air Nolan said that on tho day in question tobacco was being sol'd .in tiie shop. In this case the sale of tobacco was a deliberate one. Mr Stock said tho mistake was natural anil asked for a nominal penalty. A line of IDs, with costs All 10s was imposed. Liee-infeetod Sheet). —\A . AT. Hall was lined ill with costs 7s for having exposed lice-infeetpd sheep at tho Mntawhero saleyards. Mr J. AY. Nolan represented tho Stock Department. Ho said only a nominal penalty was wanted as tho caso was merely brought as a warnin'- to sheepfariners that they wero called upon to dip at other times than tho time set out in the Act. A lino of £l, with 7s costs was imposed., A similar line was imposed in tho caso of M. H. Manley, similarly charged. Defendant said that it would bo difficult for sheepfariners to oscapo prosecution. At shearing timo no dipoing conlil bo done, and ewes and lambs could not bo dipped. Tho S.M. said that in some cases hardship might result, but tdieepfarmers would have to ta'ko souio stops to keep thoir sheep clean. Alleged Theft.—Haro Ala tonga was put forward on a charge of stealing certain goods from AA’m. Dooloy. Doteetivo Maddorn represented tho police, and Mr Finn the defendant. William Doolev, Matawai. said that in October last ho was living in a tent, He left tho font ono morning at 5 30 o’clock and returned about f> p.m. Found that somebody had been through tho camp. Missed a min a pocket-book and a pair or boots Recognised tho gun produced as his. Knew it by a mark on the stock. Tho vnluo of tho goods stolen was about £5. Did not know accused. Nobody had any .right to remove goods from the camp. R.y Mr Finn: Would not nositivoly swear the min was his, but his gun had .a similar mark. Accused reserved his defence and was committed for trial, bail boing allowed, accused m AIU and two sureties of £5 each. A remand in tho caso of horse-stealmg pending against accused was granted till January 27ih. Alleged Breach of Prohibition Ordor —Joseph- Geddes, charged with procuring ‘liquor during the currency of a prohibition order against him was granted a remand until Januaiy 24th, to enable a witness to bo prosent, Prohibition Order.— A prohibition order, which expired beforo Christmas, was renewed. Building Contract Dispute. Hcaiiim was continued in tho case or Webb and Son v. Williams and feherratt Wm. Webb was cross-examined by Air Ti A. Coleman. He produced his cheque butts, showing that a choquo for £IOO was drawn. Ihc but, was marked “deposit. Had no other record to show that tho cheque was made out and sent as a deposm on his tender for AYilliams and Sliciratt’s job. If he had got a BauK cheque he .would have had to pay a cheque of his own for the amount to tho Bank. Air Coleman, summing up, said the case was a very important one in principle. Ho .. would raise again the non-suit points ho raised at the lirst hearing, anil if the present judgment were against him ho would beg leave to take the cuso to tho Supreme Court. Tho specification for the contract sot out that the deposit cheque must bo negotiable and must be payable to son lo architect. The S. AI. said Air Coleman would have to remember that the tender was not thrown out on this ground. Air Coleman said lio thoroughly appreciated the point. The tender in question was unsigned, •and there was no internal evidence to connect tho tender with the cheque. Counsel quoted cases showing that alterations in conditions before final written acceptance, because part of tiie original contract. The case altogether seemed to be more one of fact than of law. It had to he remember that Alaekrell and Colley s original price was greater than Webb’s all'll their reduced price was also greater, so that there could bo no suggestion that AYilliams and Slierrat-t were trying to beat Alackrell and Colley down to let them invo the lowest- tender. Air Finn, summing up, said the case was the first- of the 'kind in the Dominion, and he did not know of any such cases being reported in England. His friend called the tender a contract, but lie (Air. Finn) preferred to call it an offer, up to tho time of signature. He quoted a judgment by Chief Justice Coburn in which it was laid down- that if >an offer in a common form were not rejected, the parties would be bound by the contents thereof. A case was also quoted showing that even the acceptance of a tender does not make a contract —it only presupposed ail offer It was not- a. fact that the tender was 'made according to specifications—the conditions had been absolutely changed. Alaekrell and Collev’s tender of June 3rd' had not been accepted—their tender of .Juno 10th was tho one accepted. Judgment was reserved.

Illegal Seizure by Bailiff.—Judgment was delivered as follows in tho case Miller and Craig v. E. P. Joyce, a claim to recover moneys paid to the Bailiff to escape -distrainment of certain furniture: —This is a claim on interpleader to decide the ownership of certain chattels seized by tho bailiff of this Court-, oil the- sth November, 1907,, under warrant of distress, issued in an action in which tho present defendant was plaintiff and ono John AlcKellar was defendant. • The evidence on behalf of claimants is -that they purchased tho chattels in question; from Airs. McKellar, wife of defendant in the original action. Airs. AlcKellar’s evidence- is tli i-t the goods were her property, that slie'®pureh , iKed them from time to time, out- of her own earnings. and in her own name, and thaton flic Ist November she- sold them to claimants; -and her evide.nce is uncoiltradicted. I am satisfied from the- evidence that- claimants purchased the property in a bona, fide- martnor. Tiie only question, therefore, which I think I am called upon to decide -is whether the sale note- to the claimant is an instrument within the meaning of the Chattels Transfer Act, 1889. The goods were purchased by claimants on the Ist November, 'and I am of' opinion that they -immediately passed to them, blittiie selleY allowed- them to remain on tho premises where they were purchased for the convenience of sale. I am satisfied, that the transaction of sale was complete, apart from the document Exhibit A. and- that registration under the Cleat teds Transfer Act- was not required. For the reason given, iiigdment will be for el limaiits. with costs of Court 21s, witness 3s Oil, solicitor’s fee 21s. Amounts paid into Court by the claimants to be returned to them.