SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LI, Issue 8738, 9 March 1894, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS IN BANCO. Wednesday, March 8. (Before his Honour Mr Justice Dennis ton.) His Honour sat in banco at 11 a.m. CARDEN AND ANOTHER V GILLETT AND ANOTHER. The plaintiffs in this case were George Carden and D. P. Blame, as executors of the will of the late Rev. H. Blame, and the defendants Rev. H. Giilett and Wm. Ait-en. The latter defendant did not appear. It was an action to obtain a decree giving plaintiffs a lien over certain lands included in a mortgage of £1100. The statement of claim inter alia alleged that in an account rendered in 1889 to defendant Giilett, for whom they were agents as well as for plaintiffs, Harper and Co. represented that £1100 had been advanced in June, 1888, to W. Aitken, and in August, 1888, £2750 to H. W. Packer. These statements, it was alleged, were false and fraudulent, as the firm did not advance any money to Packer and Aitken, but that the amounts were appropriated to their own j use. Accounts were rendered to defendant Giilett up to September, 1892, crediting him with interest from Packer and Aitken. It was also alleged that, by means of cross entries, the firm of Harper and Co. remitted three sums alleged to have beeu received from Packer, but which were never so received. On December 24th, 1889, Harper and Co. were indebted to defendant Giilett to the extent of £6000, and as agent for Giilett purported to sell and transfer to Wm. Aitken certain lands included in a mortgage, the alleged consideration being the sum of £1209. The purchase money, it was alleged, was not paid by Aitken to plaintiffs or to the firm of Harper _nd Co., and has never been paid. It was alleged that the firm of Harper and Co. fraudulently intending to deprive the plaintiffs of the benefit of the mortgage procured Aitken to execute a mortgage over two rural sections in favour :of defendants, to receive the payment of I £1100 on Ist August, 1893. It was also alleged that the sale and transfer of the [ land by Harper and Co. to Aitken and the mortgage of it to defendauc Giilett was I fraudulently contracted and carried out by Harper and Co. to conceal their misappropriation of the moneys of Giilett. About June, 1892. iv consideration of an alleged sum of £2750 paid by Giilett to plaintiffs all the interest and estate of plaintiffs as executors of Blame in the mortgage was transferred by George Harper as attorney of plaintiffs to Giilett. This it was alleged, was done to make good the previous misappropriations of Gillett's money by Harper and Co. It was alleged j that the firm of Harper and Co. acted as | agents ot defendant Giilett, and had full ! knowledge of all the matters. j The atatement of defence alleged that j the firm of harper and Co. as attor- j neys for plaintiffs sold the property j included in the mortgage to Aitken, j and lent Aitken £1100 as agents of defendant out of money awaiting investment, i and that the advance so made was a bona j fi.de one and the defendant was entitled to j the benefit of the mortgage. The defendaut j alleged that Harper and Co. were the agents of the plaintiff and had equal knowledge of the matters referred to. The defendant therefore denied that plaintiff was entitled to tbe relief asked for. At the former sitting on December Bth, 1893, several witnesses were examined. The case now came before his Honour for argument of the legal points. Mr Fisher for plaintiffs, Mr Stringer for defendant. After argument his Honour reserved his decision.