Wednesday, September 15,
(Before His Honor Judge Ward.) MEG SON V. STALKEEi This case was adjourned till next Court day, as certain account sales had only just come to hand. IVESS V. MARTIN. This was a claim for L 27, commission alleged to have been overpaid by defendant for the collection of certain accounts. It came out in the evidence given by plaintiff that the amount bona fide- in dispute between the parties was only L 6 13s 4d., and as this sum was below the jurisdiction of the Court, his Worship nonsuited plaintiff.' FERGUS V. PETER. Mr. Purnell appeared for plaintiff, and asked for an adjournment, owing to the absence of two witnesses. The case was adjourned till next Court day. WOOD, SHAKE, AND GO., V. MCKERROW AND CO. For plaintiffs—Mr. Garrick. For defendants —Mr. Purnell. This was anaction in which plaintiffs sought to recover the sum of L 156 13s. 4d., being value of two reaping machines and eight boxes of wire alleged to have been sold to defendants by Maclean and Winter, as agents for plaintiffs. William Shand, one of the plaintiffs; said Maclean and Winter, auctioneers at Rakaia, had reapers and binders in their hands for witness’ firm. Witness put in an acknowledgment by Maclean and Winter that they held seven reapers and binders from Wood, Shand, and Co. They advised witness’ firm of the sale to M‘Kerrow and Co. of two reapers and binders and eight boxes of wire at the price of LISG 13s, 4d. Mr. Mann, of the firm of M‘Kerrow and Co., came to our office at Christchurch, and inquired as to the price of reapers and binders. Quoted prices to him, and he replied he could get the machines in Rakaia at the same figure. Told him that was quite likely, as the machines were ours, and we fixed the price for the season, Mr. Mann said he would not then make up his mind to order, as he wished to see Mr. Anderson who also had machines. By Mr. Purnell —Maclean and Winter made two purchases of machines from our firm in 1878. Presumed Wood, Bhand, and Co. were paid for the eight reapers and twenty-four boxes of wire for which the promissory note produced was given. Knew that part of the bill was paid when it matured, but could not say how much. Maclean and Winter acted for us as general agents. We rendered an account to McKerrow and Go. for the machines sold by Maclean and Winter. This was on the 31st of May—six months after the sale. We rendered an account at the same time to R. Patton for two machines. T. A. Winter, of the firm of Maclean and Winter, said the document put into his hand [the acknowledgement above referred to] referred to all the machines in their possession at that date—sth April. The document acknowledged them all to be the property of Wood, Bhand, and Co. Wo gave the document as collateral security to Wood, Shand, and Co., but four of the machines were our own. Two out of the four were sold to McKerrow and Co., and two to R. Patton. The document was given to Mr. Beaumont as a sale note. We assigned our estate to trustees in May, 1880. His Honor said the document was neither a bill of sale nor a mortgage, and was, therefore, valueless to protect the plaintiffs. Mr. Garrick submitted that the store note of April 5, 1879, amounted to an acknowledgment in equity that the interest of Maclean and Winter in the machines passed to Wood, Shand, and Co., and operated to change the property. He would accept a nonsuit on the- point raised, but submitted that at an argument held in Christchurch between himself and Dr. Foster, and before his Honor, a similar question had been decided by his Honor in his (Mr. Garrick’s) favor. He had not expected Mr. Winter’s evidence to be of this nature, and he would ask his Honor to take the remaining evidence in the case, and hear argument of the legal point at next sitting of the Court. His Honor consented to this, and the examination continued. Witness continued—l gave the store note at the time I renewed a bill to Wood, Shand, and Co., . who are included as creditors in the deed of assignment by our firm. We had a current account with McKerrow and Co. at the time of the sale of the machines to them. After the sale there was another transaction between the two firms—namely, the sale of a dray. Wrote to Wood, Shand, and Co. that the four, machines had been sold to Patton and to McKerrow and Co. Do not think Wood, Shand, and Co. were entitled to the money for McKerrow and Co. ’s machines. Those sold to Patton were on a different footing to those sold to McKerrow and Co. I spoke to Beaumont when the bill was first dishonored, and told him only four of the machines were sold, and that he woufd have to renew the bill at maturity. Gave Mr. Beaumont the store note to show that so many machines were held by our firm for Wood, Shand, and Co. Three machines wore returned to Wood, Shand, and Co. Was not aware that Wood, Shand; and Co. had proved in the estate for these machines. By Mr. Purnell—Told Patton to pay Wood, Shand, and Co. John Mann - Mr. Winter told me that four of the seven machines on his firm’s premises were their own, and that the others were Wood, Shand, and Co.’s. I had a conversation with Mr. Shand, in Christchurch, in the course of which I learned that machines could be bought as cheaply in Rakaia from Maclean and Winter as from Wood, Shand, and Co. Do not know whether these machines were credited in our books to Maclean and Winter. Wood, Shand, and Co. have always sent in their accounts to us on the Ist of every month, and they had never given any indication that they considered themselves principals in this transaction. By Mr. Garrick—l believe there were seven machines on Maclean and Winter’s premises, but 1 made no inquiries as to whom they belonged. Mr. Winter said afterwards they partly belonged to Wood, Shand and Co., and partly to Maclean and Winter. I know from Mr. Winter that machines of Wood, Shand and Co. were at Rakaia, and thought I could make a
better bargain with them for their own machines than I could with Maclean and Winter for theirs. I knew nothing whatever of Wood, Shand and Co. having an interest in the four machines claimed by Maclean and Winter. T. A. Winter, recalled—l sent an account in my own name to MhKerrow and Co. shortly after having sold them. The case was then adjourned till next Court day. FRIEDI, AN DEE V. REID. Mr. Purnell, for plaintiff, applied for a change of venu to Christchurch, which was granted. E. G. WRIGHT V. FLETOHER. Mr. Purnell for plaintiff. . This was a claim for L2OO. Defendant did not appear, and judgment was given against him hy default, with costs. IN BANKRUPTCY. Be Risely Biros.—Mr. Crisp applied for discharge of debtors. Adjourned.
Mr. Purnell applied for ah order of discharge for Robert Powrie, a debtor. Granted. Ee William Banks, a debtor—Mr. Crisp applied for an order of discharge. Granted. Re- Samuel Holland—Application for costs by Mr. Crisp. Granted. Re. Joseph Ward, a debtor—Application by Mr. Crisp for costs. Granted. Re Thomas Gleeson—Application for costs by Mr. Crisp. Granted.
Permanent link to this item
DISTRICT COURT., Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 153, 16 September 1880
DISTRICT COURT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 153, 16 September 1880
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.