Mr. Garrick contended that the agents of the vessel had no right to employ the defendant as their representative. Ho*(Mr. Garrick) had no doubt but that Mr. Louisßon finding the clearing of goods from the steam vessels a yerv lucrative business was very assiduous in under, taking it. If ho took such duties upon himself he must do so with all their responsibilities. I tt this instanco a valuable instrument had boon seriously injured by the rough way in which it had been opened. He (Mr. Garrick) thought it very unjust that a case should be taken possession of by an agent without any notice being sent to the owner, and then that a bill for a variety of expenses should bo sent in. His Worship decided that the defendant was not an agent of the plaintiff. He (tho Resident Magistrate) was quite satisfied that a trespass had been committed by the defendant, but he did not think that the injury had been done to the box in consequenco of the trespass. Under all the cir cumstances, ho should give damages for the trespass, £o, and tho Court costs.
Bank of New South Wales v. Lonssoj. —This was a similar action to the last. A box' valued at £3O, entrusted to tho agency of Jlr Louisson, had been handed over by him to a per." son to whom he thought it belonged. Mr. Harper argued that the bank had not ex. ercised sufficient caution in the matter.
Mr. Garrick contended that tho laches of the bank had nothing to do with the question at issue, He sympathised with Mr. Louisson, who would have to pay rather a high price for experience which might hereafter prove very valuable to him.
Judgment for the plaintiff for the full amount and costs.
