Permanent link to this item
DISTRICT COURT., Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 140, 17 August 1880
(Before His Honor Judge Ward.) Monday, Aog. 16. Fergus v. Peter, and Wright v. Fletcher were adjourned till next Court day. Wood, Shand, and Co. v. M‘KorroW and Co.—Claim L 156 13s. 4d. Mr. Garrick applied for an adjournment, as his client had not come up with the train, which was granted, with the usual costs. Ivess v. Martin.—Claim L 27 Is. Bd. Mr. Branson appeared for defendant, and Mr. Ivess conducted his own case. Mr. Ivess said that under an agreement with defendant the moneys sued for had been collected by Mr. Martin. He was sorry to bring the case into this Court, as it more properly belonged to the Court below, but owing to a frivolous technicality he had been nonsuited, with costs. On or about the 12th February Mr. Martin had been engaged to collect accounts at ten per cent, commission on the first L 250 collected, twelve and a half per cent on the second L 250, and fifteen per cent on the balance. On the 12th of March Mr. Martin entered upon his duties, and received certain accounts to start with, the balance not being ready. Contra accounts and accounts accruing from public bodies prior to the Ist March were exempted. Defendant was to give bis whole time and attention to the collection of the accounts, and was requested not to threaten any debtor in Mr. Ivess’ name. The balance of the accounts were given to Martin on the Ist of April, and it was stipulated that no contra-accounts were to be settled without first referring to Mr. Ivess. It was also stipulated that on all accounts sent per post addressed to Mr. Ivess, or paid into Jameson’s store, commission would be allowed. Had occasion to complain of the unsatisfactory way in which the accounts were being collected. On his return from the North Island, about the 15th of June, Ivess asked for a statement of accounts, which Martin rendered. From moneys received on Mr. Ivess’ behalf he withheld commission which Mr. Ivess disputed his title to. Owing to this dispute Martin was dismissed, but he still kept on collecting accounts in Mr. Ivess’ name—to wit, James Brown’s, Wakanui, and the Templar Hall Company. In the set-off put in by Mr. Martin a sum of L9l is debited as having been paid into the Mail office. The set-off was a very crude document, giving no particulars, but only a lump sum. Disputed the amount of L9l being paid into the Mail office. Only sued Mr. Martin for the amount he collected on my behalf. There were neither dates nor amounts of the items given in the set-off, and it would take too much of the time of the Court to amend the particulars. Would apply for an adjournment to allow the other side to amend particulars of their set-off. Mr. Branson had no objection. It was only necessary to show what sums were paid into Mr. Ivess’ office and what went to Mr. Jameson’s. His Honor granted Mr. Ivess’ application, and the case was adjourned till next Court day. Megson v. Stalker. —Mr. Hammeraley appeared for plaintiff and Mr. Branson for defendant. This action was brought to recover Ll3O in name of damages and loss sustained by plaintiff through the failure of defendant to fulfil an agreement to thresh plaintiff’s grain at a given time. During the time defendant neglected to go on with the threshing the markets had fallen in price, and plaintiff had therefore been compelled to sell at a lower figure than he would have secured had the grain been threshed at the time agreed on. Joseph Megson said that early in March he went to Stalker and asked him what threshing he had undertaken. He said he had undertaken none but Gardiner’s and Buckley’s. This, he said, would take nine or twelve days, Stalker said he would come direct from Buckley’s to thresh witness’ grain. Witness said the market was going down, and it was imperative the grain should be threshed. This promise by Stalker was made about the 2nd of April. He finished at Buckley’s on the Ist April, Buckley’s is about a mile
from my place. Stalker, when he had finished at Buckley’s went direct to Hardwick’s. W r ent to Stalker and mentioned to him that he heard Stalker was going to Hardwick’s, and asked if it was true. Stalker said Hardwick had been bothering him to go, and he was going. Witness then said if he did go to Hardwick’s and broke his agreement witness would sue him for damages. Stalker then said, “Oh, then, Hardwick can sweat.” Did not se Stalker till the 19th April, when Stalker fetched the machine. Could have got a machine at the time the agreement was made,, but not at the time Stalker did come. Had 4,000 bushels of wheat threshed besides the tailings, and 1,612 of barley, Showed Mr. Pavitt a sample of the barley from the stack in the early part of April. I went three times to Christchurch after the grain, was threshed, but could not sell it—everybody was full up, and 1 had to send it to Auckland through Orr and Co., and Mr. George Roberts. That sent through Mr. Robert's was sold at 3s. Gd., but I have not got the account sales.
His Honor failed to see how damages could be assessed without the account sales, as ■'hey were the only data upon, which it could be ascertained whether' necessary or unnecessary expense had been incurred in finding a market. Mr. Hammersly applied for an adjournment to produce the account sales/ which'' were expected every day. His Honor granted the adjournment. in bankruptcy. Re Timothy Hircock. Application for order of discharge. ' Granted.—Mr. O’Reilly for bankrupt. Re James Porter.—Mr.; O’Reilly applied for an order of discharge, which was granted. , Re J. R. Aitken.—Mr. Crisp applied for, bankrupt’s discharge, which was granted. Re Thomas Clark.—Mr. Crisp applied to have the deed of assignment declared completely executed; ■ Granted. Re Samuel Corrigan.—Application for order of discharge refused, the notice not having been published in two newspapers. Application to be renewed next Court day. Re Robert Powrie.—Mr. Purnell applied for an order for payment of costs. Granted.
Re John Stevens. —Application by Mr. Crisp for order for bankrupt’s discharge. Granted.
Re Risely Brothers.—Application for order of discharge. Adjourned till next Court day. Re H. J. Edwards.—Also adjourned. ..
DISTRICT COURT., Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 140, 17 August 1880
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.
Papers Past now contains more than just newspapers. Use these links to navigate to other kinds of materials.
These links will always show you how deep you are in the collection. Click them to get a broader view of the items you're currently viewing.
Enter names, places, or other keywords that you're curious about here. We'll look for them in the fulltext of millions of articles.
Browsed to an interesting page? Click here to search within the item you're currently viewing, or start a new search.
Use these buttons to limit your searches to particular dates, titles, and more.
Switch between images of the original document and text transcriptions and outlines you can cut and paste.
Print, save, zoom in and more.
If you'd rather just browse through documents, click here to find titles and issues from particular dates and geographic regions.
The "Help" link will show you different tips for each page on the site, so click here often as you explore the site.