MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXVII, Issue 167, 17 July 1896, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

YESTERDAY.

(Before Mr R. S. Bush, S.M.)

Thos. Healey v. Edwakd Dunne.— Claim, £7 10». The statement ot claim alleged that on 31et August, 1895, defendant sold to Archibald Clements, as agont for plaintiff, a half share in the Hauraki Gulf claim and thac defendant represented to Clements t&ab the -title had been acquired. Relying on such representation Ehe Bum of £7 10s was paid through Clements to defendant for the half share. —Archibald Clements deposed to buying a share for himself in the Hauraki Gulf claim and for a friend named Healey ho bought half a share. Dunno told witness that ib was a good thing, that the title was through the Court, that Kidd and Corbet* were shareholders in it, and they were going to reporb on the mine. Dunne also bold him that tho mine would be floated the week following or in a fortnight. Three weeks or a month after be had paid his money he found that the title waß nob through the Court. Witness had brought an action for the recovery of his money which was paid.—ln croseezamination by Mr Cottoi witness eaid that Dunne did nob tell him that the claim was not granted by the Warden, but was being pub through ac quickly as possible; in fact, quite the reverse.—Thomas Haaley, the plaintiff, deposed thab when he found out thab tho claim was not granted he demanded his purchase money from Dunne, who Baid he would have to nee the shareholders aboub it. On another occa»ion Dunne said that he could nob refund the £7 10s as gome of ib had been spenb.—ln unswer to Mr Cotter wibnoßß eaid thab he euppoeed that by the receipt (producod) he still bad an interest in the claim. — Witness in reply to a question by Mr Bush eaid he would be satisfied to allow bis money to remain in the claim if there were a title.— Mr Cqtter submitted that on plaintiffs own ovidence defendant* was entitled to a nonHuib. Ho must either take the risK or leave it. He could not blow hob and cold. The case was nob analogous bo tho case of Walker v. Garratb decided by Mr Northcroft in favour of plaintiff.—Mr McGregor replied and submitted that there had been misrepresentation as to the title, and thab there was no grounds for a non-suit.—Mr Bush said ib would be more satisfactory to hear defendant's version.—Joseph Smalea, one of the original promoters, deposed to having had several conversations with Healey, in which tho latter declared tho whole business to be a swindle, and eaid that if the company was not floated bo that he could realise, he would take the matter into Court. Witness assured him ib was nob a swindle and asksd him to wait. He did not hear Healey say anything about tho claim nob being licensed, or mentioning thab as the reason for his troubles.—Edward Dunne, the dofendant, said he told Mr Clements when the shares were sold whab w&a the position ot the syndicate. He denied having told Mr Clements thab the license was granted and that the matter had been pub through the Court. Witness did not see Healey until about two months after the two half shares were sold. Healey then said there was some swindle attached to it, and wanted his money back. Witness was quite sure plaintiff never mentioned the fact of the license nob being granted as ths roaoon why he wanted his money refunded.—Ab the conclusion of tho evidence Mr Bush said he would look into the evidence and giro hii decision on Tuesday next;.