SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 11152, 19 December 1901, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

A CLABI FOR AOOOT2NTS. ! The caee of Brett v. Badger a»d another : came before his Honour Mr Justice Dennis-; tion yesterday. Iα the statement of claim it vras alleged fcliat some years ago the defendants, Wilfred Badger, of Christchurch, solicitor, and Nathaniel J- Suckling, of Chrietcliurdh, boot manufacturer, received from tbte'late Mr* Harriett Baker Brett, the mother of the plaintiff, tfee sum of £146, with an ultimate trust in favour of John Harris Brett, the plaintiff. The defendants had new informed the plaintiffs of toe terms and conditions of such) trust, nor of the'date they received the money, and the defendant*, it was alleged, had. refused and neglected to pay tibe same, but it was set forth that the defendant Badger accounted to the plaintiff for the man. of £100 by two several account*. The plaintiff accord, ingly prayed for judgment receiving an account shtowing tJhe date that the defendants received the money, the amount received on behalf of the plaintiff, the amount now in hand, and if not the full amount the date when and the cause why tlfe amount was diminshed. In the statement of defence the defendants denied that some years agj> they received £146 in trust for the plaintiff. They held £100, and no more, and had transferred the same to the defendants for tiie purpose of liquidating tfcte liabilities mentioned in the annexed account. They said that they were carrying out the instruction* contained in a letter of request eigned by Deßenzi Harris Brett, to whom the interest in tbe money ibad been transferred by the plaintiff, and who toad later refcransferred his interest to the plaintiff. !Jlr Kippeajberger appeared for the plaintiff, Mr Lsard for the defendant Suckling, and Mr Badger appeared on his own behalf. Mr Kippenberger moved for judgment, and relied upon statements contained in certain paragraphs of the statement of defence. It was admitted that the amount had been received, but it was. contended that the defendants, or one of them, had a set off against this claim. The onus of proof as to wha4> the defendants could take out of the amount rested ivith the defendants. His Honour considered that the question of accounts sthould be settled by the Registrar, and he accordingly requested Mr Kippenberger to ihSive tbm done.