RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Manawatu Times, Volume V, Issue 140, 23 July 1881, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thursday, July 21st, 1881. [Before the Resident Magistrate.] Heaton V Plimmer, Reeves, & Co. This was an action brought by the plaintiff for the recovery £10, and £20 ordinary damages caused by supplying half a ton of flour, which turned out unfit for use, aud caused considerable damage to the plaintiff, through loss of customers, I and other causes. ! Mr. Staite appeared for the plaintiff, and the evidence of defendants was taken iv Wellington aader the Resident Magistrates Evidence Act. John A. Heaton examined : I knowthe defendants, and have bad dealings witb thera. I bought half a ton of flour from them ay™ 11 10s, which thsy guaranteed as Bruce's first-class flour. It turned out to be unfit fur v. , as the bread made from it had to be thrown away. Through that ■ I lobu several of my customers, and most of tKe bread made from the flour was returned. I was put to considerable inconvenience through the flour having tc be caried back to the station, and having to s^ek elsewhere for flour to use. I believe 1 have sustained more damage than I claim for. I u^.'d one sack, and returned the other flour. £ paid '4s 6d carriage on the same. In buying retail I was bound to lose. Through the b-id flour, I was compelled to ray 3s or 4s per hundred more for the flour. I claim also for my lo&3 of time m seeking for better flour. Geoige EUui>haw examined: lhave been a baker for the last thirty years or more, and know good flour when I see it. I remember buying some riour, the same quality as thnt m question. I sent same of it out, but it all came back agaia. The brand was Bruce's, I never saw the brand before, i.vldo not care if I never see it again. It was represented to me to be first class flour. Bad .bread sent out materially reduces the amount of cqstom, be "ides oiher inconveniences. Henry Haines examined \ In December ,ast I was m Mr. Heaton's employ. Re-member-half a to.n of flour coming from Wellington m that month, but only one sack was used, as several customers left Mr. Heaton through the bread being bad. returned the flour to Wellington. The evidence for the defendants, taken •n Wellington, was read by the clerk of the Court, m the course of which letters from both parties appeared. From it^jt appeared that the flour, as returned to tl im, had been sold as a first-class article, and no previous complaints had ever been , made about the bread manufacture! from,

it ; beside which, the evidence o%;baker m Wellington went to prove that the flour was excellent ia quality. The plaintiff was recalled, and examined by tha Court ; I have been a baker' for some twenty years. Tbe reason our bread turned out bad, was that the flour was bad. I did not test the flour until I put it into bread. I have not the slightest doubt that the flour was bad. My yeastwas perfectly good ; lam positive of that. I knew directly the flour was made into dough that it was bad, 7: George "Eldersbaw, recalled : The flour' was not at all gooi, and as far "as my experience goes, it was perfectly unfit for USe, • . . .-.■-:. ■■- .-■■-.. .-..7 Henry Haines recalled : The whole of , the customers complained the day after the delivery, and many gave up Mr. Heaton. * His Worship said he was satisfied that the flour was not good, and gave judgment foi £10, and£2 15s costs. HEATON V BRADLEY. This was a judgment sommpns, and the plaintiff applied for an adjournment until next Court day, which was granted. ; BUGG BROTHERS V. J. A. GORDON. Distress warrant, under which articles of stock had been seized, but wb'.ch were claimed by Messrs. Halcombe and Sherwill as their property. Mr. Staite appeared for the plaintiff*, and Mr. Perkins for the defendant. '! Tha bailiff was sworn Jas .li haying seised one spring trap, one horse," trap harness, and other articles. The defend-; sat stated to him that at the time iof the ce'zure the articles belonged to Sherwill aiid Halcbmfcs, and not to Liftaself. He (the bail-i?) took charge of them, and drove them to his premise's, where they were then. By Mr, Staite; The goods had been m Gordon's possession some considerable time before the : seizure, : but he always kept out oifymy way, for fear bf having.; them seized. lhave found out that the trap has been hidden m a kaii-to-- in Taonui stfeet^ and the'horse te' Leered near to. Haloombe and Sherwill have not replied to-my letter, nor paid the cost of possession, .wjhv-jj ..;. Cross-examined ; by Mr, Perkins: „Wb<sn.l seized the goods, the defendant said they belonged to Messrs. Halcombe ahd Sherwill, and not to himself. I gave the,fir.m:nqtice of the seizure, but they made no reply. .x ■s■.;.-.] Mr. Perkins addressed the Court at some length, producing evidence to prove that the property had actually been purchased by Messrs. Halcombe and Sherwill, who held a receipt for the same, which would he produced. The articles had merely been lent to Gordon to carry produce to the sale rooms of the firm. William Jackson examined : I am clerk to Messis Halcombe and Sherwill. [A letter from Mr Sherwill was here i cad*; showing cause for non-attendance.] I remember the firm purchasing the spring trap m question froni a man named Johnson. [Receipt bearing the! signature of Johnson, produced,! being. for horse, trap, and harness.] Mr Sherwill lent tnem to Gordon to. enable him to bring goods to the sale rooms. There" was no other contract. I appear here to claim them on behalf of Messrs.. Halcoiftbe aftd Sherwill. By Mr Staite * I could not say positively that there was no contract between the parties Gordon was getting no remuneration for bringing the? produce to the salerooms, other than his sale of produce. I know that the cheque passed through Halcombe and Sher will's books. Gordon, was to keep the trap and harness. This was, X think, the only stipulation. Robert Bujg examined ; I have seen Gordon m possession of the horse and ; tr»p for the last five weeks. In course of conyersatiop he told 'wp had broken m the horae himself v and that be h#d paid £[14 for the trap, I assisted the bailiff m discovering; the whereab.ou.ta. pjf the trap. «J. A. Gordojx sworn: J, did tell Mr Bugg that I had broken in' the horse; bu,t l am. not certain, whether or" not T told that I had paid £14 for the trapy I broke m the horse for Johpson. This was before Halcombe and Sherwill bought it^ because Johnson ajifL% were partners. Further conflicting eviden.ee was elisll ted from the witness. , For the plaintiff;, M* Sta^e addresaied tbe Court, stating that it was a clear ease of fraud on behalf of the defendant; but m so doing, be did not for one kn,omsnt attribute fraud to Messra Halcombe "and Sberwiil. Mr Perkins having rfpUed &t some length for the defense. ' His Worship said, that although it was denied, he was inclined \9 think that Johnson and Gordon were ihpartaeiship. The sale, therefore, would not p-Qtect Messrs Halcombe^ and Sherwill, as the possession' was not altered. Judgment would, therefore, he given up-, holding the seizure, the horse and cart to be sold by the bailiff, unless the"chtinr of-plaintiffwere satisfied. ;f ; A y ALFRED STACB V. C THOMPSON. ( Claim, made for some,gee^e upottfanorder. Mr, Staite appeared for the defendant, and made a technical objection, which the Bench upholding, the plaintiff w^s non-suited. A. lOiUfC", V. J. BRIDGE. ... x. Claim,. £l3. The evidence of defendant's witness was taken under the Resident Magistral es Act, and the case is to be heard m Wanganui.