THE CITY HOTEL.

Press, Volume XLV, Issue 7194, 2 November 1888, Page 3

THE CITY HOTEL.

SINGULAR CASE.

At the Resident Magistrate's Court, yesterday, before C. Whitefoord, Esq., R.M., Messrs Partridge and Buddie sued Mrs E. Hadfield, as proprietor of the City Hotel, on a claim of £33 3s for goods (spirits, &c) delivered.

Mr Holmes appeared for the plaintiffs. Mr Joynt for defendant.

J. "W. Buddie, one of the plaintiffs, deposed that the goods in question were ordered by J. O. Sbeppard, and charged to him. The firm believed that he was the proprietor of the City Hotel, but on reading in the papers a report of a case brought by the police against the hotel on September 26th and 27th they, for the first time, learned that he was only manager for Mrs Hadfield, who was the real owner.

Mr Holmes—l suppose my learned friend will not deny Mr Joynt—We dei>y everything. Mr Holmes—No doubt you will. You would deny your own name. Mr Joynt—Sir, I must protest against the insults of my learned friend. I did not come here to be bullied by him. Mr Holmes — Will you produce the license? We summonsed you to produce it.

Mr Joynfc—"We have not got it. When J. O. Sheppard went bankrupt the Official Assignee sent for the license. Mrs Hadfield gave it to mc, and I sent it to him. J. W. Buddie (continuing)— After the firm found that Mrs Haddeld was the principal, they wrote to her demanding payment. She declined, and hence these proceedings. W. G. Walker, Clerk of the Court, produced the license of the City Hotel. Mrs Hadfield was the licensee. She held it since October 18th, ISS3, when it waa transferred to her by Edwin Cookson. Francis Calien, Court Orderly, deposed that he was in Court on September ;JCth, when the police brouKht a case against Mrs Hadllejd. Her counsel (Mr Holmes) in his opening remarks, said » Mr Joynt—l object to this; what her counsel said in his opening cannot be used against her as evidence, or bind her. Air Holmes—The rule of law is, that what is stated in the presence of, and not contradicted by, the person concerned, is admissible as evidence for what it is worth. x Mr Whitefoord—l do not see that. Mr Joynt—l challenge learned counsel to produce any case in support of his contention, and further, I challenge him to deny that he knew that Mrs Hadfield had nothing to do with the hotel. He knew it very welL He appeared for Sheppard, and no one else. Mr Holmes —If I and my learned friend were outside of the Court, and he repeated that remark, I would say to him two words of five letters in all. Mr Joynt—No doubt you would. At any rate, you cannot say that you were instructed by the defendant. Mr Holmes—No, but I appeared for her all the same. Some further argument took place about the admisslbility as evidence of what had been said by Mr Holmes In conducting the defence of the City Hotel case. Mr Whitefoord finally ruled it out, taking a note of Mr Holmes contention to the contrary. Ellen Hadfield deposed that ehe had been sued by Gardner and Pickering for goods supplied by them to the City Hotel. She confessed judgment on October Ist. The goods seemed to have been supplied in February. Her brother (J. O. j Sheppard) suggested she should do so. Fletcher Humphreys summonsed her in like manner; her brother paid part of the account, and the summons was withdrawn. Bailiffs were put in the hotel for rent. She did not pay them out. Doyle Bros, also Dut bailifts in, she thought for money borrowed by her brother. She never ordered nor paid for furniture for the City Hotel from A. J. White. When she received from them an invoice, she declined to pay, and handed it to her brother. She had never received any money from her brother on account of the City Hotel. She had not any banking account nor account books. Notwithstanding her being licensee of the City Hotel for five years, she had never received from her brother one shilling oat of the profits, or for anything else. She was a widow, and did not carry oa any business. She paid her way deriving her I income from her husband's estate. From that source she had been paid money ever since his death.

Cross-examined —Her huaband died on February 21st, 1883. Hβ left a considerable estate, part of it consisted of advances made to the City Hotel business, both to Cookson and Sheppard in considerable sums. She was one of the trustees of her husband's -will. After her husband's death Edwin Cookson was appointed manager, and held the license till October, 1883, when he was discharged. In the meantime J. O. Sheppard had become bankrupt. He got alia discharge, and was appointed manager in October, 1883. Witness continued to hold the license. In April 1884 the trustees put up the lease, license and furniture of the hotel at auction. Sheppard became the purchaser. He gave bills for part of the purchase money—they were current for a considerable time, and she retained the license on that account. In this period she used to go down and look at the books, and the banking account was kept in her name. She never operated on it except to pay the hotel debts. That arrangement lasted till September, 1885. Since then she never, directly or indirectly, interfered in the business of the City HofceL She had not received invoices from Partridge and Buddie. In the last two or three years she had often asked her brother to get the license in his own name. She had not lived at the City Hotel at any time since she held the license. She lived in Stanmore road. Whatever she did in the payment of accounts quoted she did to assist her brother, on his representation that he would repay her. Mrs Morling, her sister, also a widow, had been housekeeper at the hotel for some years. She took an active part in the management. In the police case witness told Mr Holmes she did not live at the hotel, and could not give any evidence. She never told him that she was the principal, or that Sheppard was only manager. She never heard Sheppard say so. She never authorised Mr Holmes to say so. When she paid the accounts she had no idea that her brother would have to go through the Court.' She had never given anyone reason to believe that she had anything to do with the hotel since 1885. In reference to an account (produced) of £25 6s 8d for ale, spirits, &c, owing to Henry Gain, wine and spirit merchant, she saw that a summons connected with it had been served on her on August 23rd. She did not remember it; had not paid anything on account of it, nor had any dealings with Mr Gain. [The Court record was produced, showing that the account bad been settled by payment into Court by J. O. Sheppard. J ■ To Mr Holmes—Was summoned by Mr Roper for £12 or £13; did not defend the action. She got £5 from Sheppard; she handed it to her brother Charles,and asked him to find the balance, and pay the account. That was done. She heard Sheppard say in Court that he was her manager, or rather that he was *' manager." She did not remember whether he said he was manager for her or for anybody else. She knew that latterly her brother was short, but he always said he would be all right when the busy time came on. She knew that he owed Marks a considerable sum but did not know until very lately that he had mortgaged his interest under her husband's will. George Humphreys deposed that the defendant and her brother came to him about the account, wanting them to withdraw the summons. He declined, and on the next day Sheppard paid £5 on account. She did not repudiate her responsibility—the question was not raised. Hugh Wilson, in the employment of A. J. White, stated that the goods supplied by that firm were invoiced to defendant and invoiced to her at the City Hotel. She never informed them that she was responsible. She never repudiated her liability. Mr Joynt here interjected some remark about the witness haying been " coached," which brought a pointed rejoinder from Mr Holmes, and for some time counsel exchanged stinging personal remarks. Mr Whitefoord intervened, and after order was restored matters went on more smoothly. C. Revans, book-keeper to Gardner and Pickering, said the goods supplied by them were invoiced to Mrs Hadfleld. She never, in the course of their dealings with the City Hotel, said she was not responsible. She was asked to sign a guarantee but declined to do so, though she did not absolutely repudiate her liability. This was the case for the plaintiff. Mr Joynt did not call any evidence, but in a long address claimed a non-suit on the ground that it had not been proved that Sheppard had been acting as defendant's agent in the transactions with the plaintiff c firm. Mr Holmes replied, and judgment was given for the plaintiff for the amouut claimed, with costs £8 9s 6d. Mr Joynt notified his intention to appeal.