From Western Post, 6 July 1861: DISTRICT COURT Tuesday, July 2nd Before Mr Justice DOWLING Barristers present: Mr HOLROYD, instructed by Mr BRODRIBB; Mr WINDEYER, instructed by Mr TEMPLETON. WILTON v DARE - £4 12s Postponed till next sitting by consent. WILSTON v ASHTON - £35 6s 6d for promissory note. Verdict for plaintiff and costs. CHRISTIAN v MORAN - settled. SINDEN v BATES - Promissory note, £25 13s 6d. Verdict for plaintiff and costs. BAYLY v O'BRIEN - postponed till next sitting. JUPP v BLOODSWORTH - Postponed till next sitting. No service. KENNEDY and another v. NEW - settled. SHUTTLEWORTH v KNIGHT - Account for goods sold and delivered. Verdict for plaintiff and costs. DICKSON and Another v KIRKNESS - £28 8s 6d for goods sold. Verdict for plaintiff LAMONT v JAMES - £11 9s 11d for goods sold. Verdict for plaintiff. BURGESS v WOOD - settled SINDEN v KIRKNESS - £15 promissory note. Verdict for plaintiff. WILIAMS v A TEOU - £21 18s 1d promissory note. Verdict for plaintiff. REUBEN v RYAN - £16 0s 9d for goods sold. Verdict for plaintiff. BRYANT v JAMES - £14 19s 7d for goods sold. Verdict for plaintiff. BRYANT v FORSTER - not served. WILTON v ARNOLD - not served. HARDY v LYONS - settled STA_NS v GUINAN - settled. VAN ROSSUM v BARNES - This was an action for £15 for drugs sold. Mr HOLROYD for plaintiff. Mr WINDEYER for defendant. John J VAN ROSSUM, from Holland, said - in April last he sold to defendant a quantity of drugs for £15; a day or two after the delivery of the articles he called for the money, and was paid £7 on account, and was told by BARNES to call again for the balance, as he though the things were short in quantity and that he should require an allowance made. The nest time he called he consented to deduct £2 for the deficiency in the articles, and signed a receipt for the money, which he handed to BARNES, expecting, as a matter of course, that he would at once "touch" the money; instead of which, he was told he was indebted to the shop. He acknowledged owing something to BARNES' predecessor. Shortly after he saw Mr BARNES and Mr T MILLS together, when he asked defendant either to pay the balance or else return the receipt, the answer he received was "go to Court". Cross-examined by Mr WINDEYER: There was a "composition" at the time about a pair of scales, for which he had made an! allowance. Had previously given a bill of sale for the goods to Mr BLACKMAN. Had no authority to sell, but had given Mr BLACKMAN notice that he had parted with the stock. Could not say when the things were purchased; there were odds and ends of some fifty sorts of drugs, which were useful to him as a physician. Thomas MILLS, innkeeper, was present in May when VAN ROSSUM was claiming a sum of money which BARNES said he had paid with money and a contra account. VAN ROSSUM owed him (MILLS) £3; hearing BARNES was about paying him money, he asked him draw an order on him, so that he might deduct the amount due to him. He was disappointed; VAN ROSSUM persuaded him to pay the amount in full, promising to settle the £3 in a day or two, which he failed to do. The money was still owing. Mr BARNES was put into the box for the defence, and said that he should not have take the goods had not VAN ROSSUM owed him money. He agreed to give £15 for a quantity of drugs, many of which plaintiff failed to deliver; he consequently demanded 56s should be deducted for the deficiency, and gave an order on MILLS for part payment. The drugs were very indifferent; he would not have taken them had VAN ROSSUM not been indebted to him; knowing he had but a poor chance of obtaining his money, he thought it ! would be better to have the drugs on his shelves than the debt in his book. VAN ROSSUM having contracted the debt before defendant had possession of the ship, the set-off could not be allowed. His Honor gave a verdict for £5 4s and £1 15s costs. ROBINSON v HEARD. This was action for £50, the price of a stack of hay sold. Mr WINDEYER, instructed by Mr TEMPLETON for plaintiff. Mr HOLROYD, instructed by Mr BRODRIBB, for defendant. C ROBINSON , a farmer at Wilbertree, agreed to let defendant have a stack of hay; he first asked £60 for it, but not being able to cart it away, he consented to accept £50, and was paid £10 as earnest money; he subsequently received £10 more; the hay had not been removed; he had frequently applied for the balance. Cross-examined by Mr HOLROYD: The hay was in a large paddock, in which were two other stacks, which defendant had purchased of other parties. The ricks were not fenced round. Had an old horse 23 years old; did not think he could grind hay; there were other horses about; had taken every precaution to protect the hay; perhaps 3 cwt was eaten. The paddock was about 42 acres; he and two others rented it; when the hay was sold it was understood that his was to be received first. ! C ROBINSON, jun., son to plaintiff, was present at the time of the bargain; it was made in the paddock; the money was to paid before the hay was removed. Nothing as said about his father taking care of the hay; he had an old horse in the paddock; never saw him near the stack. Mr HOLROYD called Mr HEARD for the defence, who said he had purchased three stacks of hay, which were situated in a paddock at Wilbertree; he paid £10 down to ROBINSON, and offered him more, but he said he did not care about it; not requiring the use of the hay he left it in plaintiff's care till he wanted it. From information received some months afterwards he went to see the stack and found that it had been greatly injured by horses; a ton or more of hay was gone. There were a lot of horses, all lying down very contented, having their bellies full. W STANBURY, soda water maker, was present when the hay was purchased; there was a bit of a "barney' about the price. HEARD eventually gave £50 and put down £10 as a deposit. He said he did not want the hay just then. ROBINSON, in reply, said it would be perfectly safe. He (STANBURY) some time after, accompanied HEARD for the purpose of seeing the stack, when they found they could bury themselves in the holes made by the horses. HEARD offered to send a man for 3 tons, and said he would pay £10 as it was delivered, which he refused. The only interest he had in the hay was he could have a ton or so if he wished. Thos. MIDDLETON, farmer, near ROBINSON's went at the request of HEARD to take some bark off the top of the rick for the purpose of placing it round the sides so as to prevent the horses getting to it, which ROBINSON would not allow. Had a stack in the same paddock. Arthur COX, auctioneer, went out to examine the rick; from its appearance and certain calculations he made he considered that to the best of his judgement about a ton or more had been eaten; was known as the "old horse"; did not feel tempted to taste the hay himself, although it looked very good. Verdict for plaintiff £30. BULLOCK v GORDON. This was an action of trover to recover the value of a horse. The damages were laid at £20. Mr WINDEYER appeared for the plaintiff. Mr HOLROYD for the defendant. From the evidence adduced by the plaintiff it was clear the horse in question had been the plaintiffs, and that he never sold it, and that the defendant converted it. The defence was that the horse was defendants, he having bought it from a Mr LITTLE, who bought it out of the Mudgee pound. To prove this defence, Mr WALSH, the poundkeeper, amongst other persons was called. He proved that on the 1st of August last it was impounded in the Mudgee pound, and after, as he said, following out the requirements of the Impounding Act sold it on the 25th August to one Mr LITTLE. The horse in question was in the neighbourhood of the Court, and when examined certainly did not correspond in some particulars with the entry made in the pound book or with the advertisement in the Government Gazette. He ! had, however, little or no doubt that it was the horse he sold out of the pound. From the testimony of other witnesses it was clear the horse claimed by the plaintiff was the one the defendant bought as above-mentioned. Mr WINDEYER, in reply, contended that the Impounding Act was not complied with, and if were not strictly followed, the sale out of the pound would be a nullity, and hence the plaintiff's property in the horse would be unchanged. The Judge found a verdict for the plaintiff with damages for £12. He said he was satisfied that the horse was originally plaintiff's; the question was had the sale out of the pound changed the property Had the requirements of the Impounding Act been strictly followed then a sale out of a pound would vest the property in the thing so sold in the purchaser. It was clear there that the poundkeeper had not pursued the course required by the law, at any rate in one particular, if not in many others. By the 24th section of the Act, in a case like this, the sale of an impounded beast cannot take place until 24 days shall have elapsed from the time a certain notice shall have appeared in the Government Gazette on the 21st of August, and yet the sale took place on the 25th of the same month. In conclusion his Honor drew the attention of the poundkeeper to certain irregularities that he had been guilty of. N.B. All care has been taken to transcribe the above accurately, however errors may have been inadvertently made. Spelling of names/places should be as appears in original. Transcribed from microfilm available from the State Library. Annette Piper Coolah NSW