RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Thursday.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXII, Issue 2797, 13 July 1866, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Thursday.

[Before T. Dsckhah, Eiq., B.M.J .TODQMKNTS FOR PLAINTIFF. Fossemskio v. Mdrlindale, ill ss. Cd. ; SotnevTillo t. Appleton, £18 7e. ; Henderson v. Appleton, £t 3s. lid.; Constant v. Fuljames, £2 2s. lid. ; Tierce t. Loton, £1 10s. ; Harris v. Mann, £1 133. ; Olclham t. Dunning, £l Bs. 6d. ; Fisher nud Co. v. Younger, £18 2s.

XOXSVIT3. Steplicnson t. JFisk, £10; Wilkes v. Fuljaines, £2 195. ; Hunter and Son v. Hill, £16 18s. sd. ; McCaulr. Cttdmnn, £5; ITcCrao r. Attenborough, £8 4s. i .

JUDGJIENSS CONFESSED. Graham and Co. v. Carnell, £6 7«. ; Pierce t. Upton, £1 2s. 6d. ; Ellis r. Mooro, ss.

STEETTON Y. HAHDIKO. Mr. Bovoridgo for plaintiff; Mr. J. Kussell for defendant. Claim, £14 Is. 3d., for drawing out a quantity of firewood at the Great Barrier. Judgment for plain till.

XOVNG Y. HENDEESON. Mr. Beveridgefor plaintiff; Mr. BrootfleM foxdefendant. Claim, £5 2s , for injury done to a house by tlie defendant while he was a tenant. Plaintiff deposed that defendant entered his house in the month of December hut. The papering of the rooms was all in good order,- and the glass whole The locks were all in good order. Defendant remained in the house for about four months, and j when ho left there were six square* of glass broken, •md the paper was all torn. Ordinary tear and wear j could not have caused such damage. Several witnesses were examined. ' Judgment was given for th* plaintiff for Bs.

JtBLTOX Y. nATLES. Mr. North for the plaintiff; Mr. Beveridge for defendant. (.laitn, £20, as damages for assault John William Melton deposed : On the 29th of last mouth I went to the Army and Navy Hotel, about six o'clock in the evening. I went into a small room behind the bar, where 1 had been in the habit of going. I have been present when others hare been supplied, both Ijoarders and the public generally. I spoke to Mr. Croot, who was there, when Air. Hayles came in and asked me where the pup was. I told him I knew nothing of it. He went away, and then came back, and asked me if I knew that I was in a prirate room. I said I was not. In a minute or two I went out, and walked out into the diningroom The cloth was on the table. I knew that a table tTliofe was regularly served in the hotel at tha hour. The soup was being put on the table. Mr Hayles met me at the door of the room, put his hands on me, and tried to keep me from entering the room. I pushed into the room. I sat dorm for a short time, •when Mr. Hayles and a servant, came and cleared the things off the table. On entering Hayles said that I should not go in, a3 this was a private diningroom. A policeman came in. Mr. Hayles pointed me out, and the policeman asked me what the inattor was. I told the policeman there was nothing tho matter with tne. The policeman went out of tho roam without taking me in charge. I waited for a whilo, as I expected to see a gentlemen. I then went upstairs to what had formerly been the dining-room. There were several gentlemen in the room, and the dinner was being laid on tlie table. Mr. Howard and Dr. McCheyne were amongst those in the room, I sat down by the flee, and took up a paper. , I asked the girl to bring me a glass of sherry and bitter 3. She •aid that she could give it to me below, and that when I left the gentlemen would get their dinner. I intended to dine there. Mr. Hayles then came in with a second policeman, the boots, and another man. I ! was not offered dinner in any other apartment of the house. Mr. Hayles gave me in charge for not leaving the room, and tho policeman took me out of the house, and liberated me in Queen-street. I was at one time a partner with Mr. Hayles.' I have dined at the.houso sinoe I ceased to be a partner. I have often seen others than boarders served in all the rooms I was in. Cross-examined by Mr. Beveridge : "When I left Mr. Hayles we were not the best of friends. Mr. Hayles did not tell me that if I went into the commercial room he would serve me with what I wanted. Dr. McCheyne deposed that he was in the last room spoken of by Mr. Melton when tbat gentleman was in. Witness boarded at the hotel, but did not lodge there. He did not see anything disorderly j •bout Mr. Melton. i Cross-examined by Mr. Beveridge : I heard Mr. Hayles say that if Mr. Melton went below he might have w hatever' he required. i Mr. Howard deposed to the same effect. B. C. Hayle3 deposed : I had provided dinner for a certain number of guests, who he knew were to be there. Mr. 'Melton first sat down in my private room behind the bar. I tried to prevent him going into the dining-room, and told him that if he would go into the commercial room I would see that he was served. There was no room at the table for other guests. Mr. Melton followed the dinner upstairs. I told him again to go to the commercial room — I would sco that he was served. No force was used by tho policeman. Cr< ss-examined by Mr. North: I have advertised a table dhole at that time. I think I have the po.veo to object; lo anyone going into the room where the table d hote is. After I removed the ilinucr fr«»m the first room, I was quite ready t j have served Mr. Meitontheie. lam. satisfied Mr. Melton came lip to annoy me. His W orsbip said that the law was quite clear, and quoted from Burn's Justice to the effect tbat innkeepers hnd no option either to receive or reject guests ; and as they could not refuse to receive guests, so neither could they impose unreasonable terms uj.oa them. Aninuketper was not bound to receive a guest when the inn was so fall th.it it could not conveniently hold him ; nor washeliable for nob receiving a guest, unless he be tende/ed a fair remuneration for his accommodation, for he was not bound to give him cteJit, or unless the tender has been dispensed with. Although a traveller was entitled to reasonable accommodation in au itm, he was not entitled to t>elect a particular apartment, or to iusiat on occupying » bed-room for the purpose of sitting up all night, so long a-» the iuukeeper was willing and offered to furnish him with a proper room for that purpose. The means used were mild in 'putting out the plaintiff — not very agreeable, perhaps, but plain tiff ought to have bad more aeuae, A nonsuit must be recorded,

BUBBLE COMPANIES. GARLIOK Y. hUSK, Mr. Brookfield for plaintiff j Mr. Gillies for defendant. This was an action for recovery of £12 11s. 6d., en foot of an agreement entered into between Mr. JT. T. Garlick, sbarebroker, aud Mr, Hugh H. Lusk, by which the defendant agreed to pay £10 to t lie plaintiff for obtaining shareholders' iv a project to be called the " Auckland Advertiser Company," together with the expeuses of printing prospectus, fo\ms of application, &c; a'so a further sum of £15 on completion of the share list ; defendant likewise undertaking to use his influence to procure Mr. Garlick the office of secretary to the company on its formatior. ,Mr. Brookfield stated the case. He said the defendant, Mr/ Liisk, wauted to render hitmelf famous in toe world, ami attemp'el to get up a bubble company. In doing so, lie unfortunately made the plaintiff, Mr. GhilicU, one of his cat'i-.paws. To induce Mr. Gariick to carry out what he desired, be told him the particulars of the scheme, which was to get up a sore of printing company aud newspaper called the "Auckland .Advertiser Company.'' It was to begot up by one nvans or another, hesuid. If one mean's failed they w< re to try another. So the defendant wrote to the plaintiff, when he informed him that he waa unable to obtain the suppoit of the public. He says in that letter: — "I would urge you uot to be out of spirits. That is the way to fcil. Somehow or other we shall get up the thing, < aud the only way is, if one fails to try another." Thus, the project was a happy-go-lucky venture: if one way failed they were to try another. The defendant, as he had said, came to Mr. Garliek and explained the scheme. The plaintiff, who is a sbarebroker, was to get up the company ; and the defendant told htm that about 250 shares were bespoken. Mr. Gillies objected to statements being made by counsel wb.icb.be vrasnot entitled to pi ov« in evidence. The action was on a written agreement, and the statement for the plaintiff ought to be confined to that and nothing else. Mr. Brookfield said it was also an action for work aud labour done. Mr. Gillies : Exactly, according to the agreement ; and, therefore, no conversation caa be given in evidence. The only receivable evideuce iv this case is the written ngreetnenfc, which speaks fo,r itself, tf the plaintiff goes for work and labour done, he must show that he did the work. ' Mr. Brookfield : Doubtless, for his client's fair fame Ttßr. Gillies would like to put the remarks he was making on one side; but he was entitled give,evidence of everything 'that led up toEhV agreement,'

and that was what lie was now stating. Howover, if the fair fame of the defendant was io near being tarnished by a statement of the facts countered with this transaction, and if his counsel still objected, he would drop it. But at the same time he thought it would have beou probably better to have let him go on Ko doubt whatever, Mr. Garlick entered into the agreement in question on the misrepresentation of the defendant, Mr. Lixsk. Mr. Gillies interrupted. That was a statement which hid learned friend knew he had uo ri»ht to mike, and which he would n»t be allowed to prove. Mr. Bro.»kfield : I wiff prove it. Mr. Gillies : Under the charge you can't provt it. Mr. Beckham, R.M.: Of cOune all theao kind of remarks produce retort. Mr. Brookfield : lam quite willing* to hear all kimds of retort they can make, and so is my olient. Mr. Gillies : Then go on. Mr. Brookßeld continued : He made this murk beoause the defence was that the work was not done. (The agreement was then read.) Hit client had fulfilled the eruditions of the first part of the agreement. It was true that not a great many shareholders were obtained by the plaintiff ; bub fur what reason ? The fault was the defenddanl's, by misleading plaintiff. " You fchali have 250 shareholders to begiu with," says the defendant ; ° I will take 20 or 40 share*, arid my name will carry weight with the public. And then my father will take 10 shares, my brother 10 shares," and so on : but when the plaintiff asked for a list of these sh«rehoMeiB, it all came to nothing, and Mr. Garlick uuuld net no person hardly to nubsoribe — for one reason, because the piomoter* were uuknown. None of the persons mentioned took any shares, except Mr. Robert Lusk, brother of the defendant, who took ten shares, and fur reasons stated declined to take fiem in his own name. And this was the only shareholder out of 250 when it came to the point, that could be blazoned to the world. it was on account of this f.icfc that he had said that Mr. Gar* lick had been induced to undertake the work through the misrepresentation of the plaintiff ; aud it was owing to such misrepresentation that the plaintiff had failed in his efforts to get up the compauy. Mr. Brook field concluded !>y arguing that plaintiff had performed the stipulated service, and had become responsible for printing and other expenses oonnected with the undertaking. The following evidence was theu adduced :—: — J. T. Garlick deposed : On the 15th June T eutered into this agreement with Mr. Lusk : "I hereby agree to pay Mr. <i'arlick£io to procure shareholders for the 'The Auckland Advertiser Priming Company j' and if the bhare list is completed, I promise to pay £15 f»r the canvassing and general management up to that time, and to use all the influence in my power to secure for Mr. Garlick the office of secretary in the said company." That agreement was entered into consequent upon some conversatiou between us about getting up a company, to be culled "The Advertiser Company." I made i*ome few suggestions as to getting up the prospectus, at the request of Mr. Lusk. I believe [ had not neen the prospectus prior to the agreement. I added a piece to the prospectus. After mterintr into the agreement I ordered Mr. Atkin to print 750 of the prospectuses. I also got from Mr. Atkiu 500 forms of application for shares. ' Mr. A twin's charge was £253. ; 2s. 6d. is due to Thomas Waters for circulating prospectuses, aud 4s. to Wayte and Batger for envelopes. Those debts were incurred on account of the' Advertiser Company. I had the prosp ctus directed and circulated throughout the towu I paid the boy for circulating them. 1 afterwards canvassed for the purpoae of procuring shareholders, and fir.it canVatsed some of the merchants. I was not successful in getting shareholders. I then caw the defendant,' and told him whom I had seen, and that they would have nothing to do with it. He said the " big-wigs" were rather difficult to draw into such a speculation, and that I had better try the second-class tradesmen. 1 nsked him for the names of the 250 sharehold«r9, because nobody would touch the project unless they taw who were the promoters. - He could hot give the names of any shareholders. Ht said he would take 40 himself, and his father some, but his brother would not allow his name to appear. He thought Captain Butler, of Mongonni, would take some. I canvassed the middle class tradesmen, but did not find them any more gullible than the big-wigs. I got applications for 20 shares— R. B. Lusl.-, 10 shares; Wayte and Batger, 1 share; Thomas Watters, 3 shares ; It. Garlick, 1 share ; George Bullock, 3 shares ; Joseph Giles, 2 shares. That was all I got the signatures to. Mr. Atkiu promised to take 10 if the whole of the shares were taken. After this canvas I again saw Mr. Lusk. I told him that unless he could produce me at least ten men who would take 100 shares among them I would not go on. He did not do so. He suggested several, such as S. W. Hill, Jerome Cadman, L. Bucholz, S. Jackson, and J. B. Russell. I called on them. They would have nothiug to do with it. £ withdrew from the affair entiiely. I was engaged for one week in the work. I neglected my business to further the interests of the company. I claim the £10 under the first part of the agreement. Cross-examined by Mr. Gillies : ( Vccount9 produced.) These are the accounts of Mr. Atkiu, charged to Mr. Lusk, aud receipted. 1 requested the bills to be made out to Mr. Liuk ; but I was responsible. I was not aware that this was a bubble company. I believed it to be a genuine affair. I did not think there was a great necessity for another newspaper. I thought it would pay me ' according to my agreement I agreed to procure shareholders iv the proposed " Advertis r Printing Company" on the 15th of June. I threw up my connection bix day-i after, on the 21st of June. The 21st was Thursday, aud before Wednesday I had canvassed several paitie->. I had spoken to my friend. I did not make any canvass previous to the Wednesday. I iuserted an advertisement in the newspapeis, dis-laiming all connection with the Compauy, in the following terms: — "Xotice: I beg to inform the public that I disclaim all connection with the 'Auckland Advertiser Printing Company,' whose prospectus has been issued this week, bearingmy name at secretaiy pro tern. — J T. Gaiuick, Sharebroker, Queen-street. -June 21, 1866." My name was put to the prospectus with my consent. It i* not the fact that I was threatened to have my share list excluded from the newspapeis, ' because of going on with this project. 1 naid it might be so excluded. I said to Mr. Lusk that my list might be excluded on Saturday if I did uot put in an advertisement terminating my connection with the company on the Friday. 1 canvassed three or four of the merchants on the Wednesday, but was unsuccessful in getting any biter*. I way not warned by any of them of any unpleasant consequences to myself. I told defendant I mutt give up connection with the affair for the sake of my own business, as I considered the affair a swindle. Any other honest man would ha?e done the same. Between the 15th and 20th I gave instructions to the printer, addressed envelopes, and despatched the prospect me*. I addressed between 400 and 500 prospectuses. Attending to this took me four days. By Mr. Brookfield : Mr. Lusk saw my advertisement before it was inserted. I asked whether he Uould like it worded in any other way, and he said one word was aa good as another. I did not make a very heavy cauvaas among the leading merchants, and 1 tild Mr. Lusk that it required the imm s of the promoters of the company, which he h»d not given me. He did uot say I had not canvassed sufficiently. I received this letter from Mr. Lusk in rtfereuett to the matter :—

' " Auckland, June 21, 1866. " Drab Mb. Gabmcx, — I find I cau't manage to see you before the 'afternoon, so I send you these few lines instead. I have thought and talked orer what you told me yest-rday with my father and brother, and the result of our conference was that there wa« no cause to be out of spirits about if. These leading men are always difficult to drag into an uukuown speculation. I think, however, you should try the second-class meu, just as they come. I wish 1 could give you Captain Butler's name, with the amount of shares he will take. .1 will vouch for it, however, that he will take 25, at ; all events, though I cannot, of course, put his name 6a the list till I get his letter saying exactly what lie will do. Roberton and many others of the inerchauts arc great friends of hi*, and might be influenced by the use of bil name iv the matter. My brother will put in for, I suppose, at least ten shares, but under some other name thau ha owii, on the grounds I told you of yesterday. I have not done anything with S. W. Hill yet, but perhaps I may do something to-day. I agree with you that he has been influenced. I think I can very, likely bring a counter influence to bear. Cadman must, I fancy, be back by this time. It would be worth while to see that man Swanion piouiued, so Scales said, to take a lot of shares ; and Bain, he eaid, did nearly the same. Both names are worth something in their way, if they can be got ( One thing, I think, y«u ought to urge ou some people— the £5 a share is only to be paid up in a period of 15 mouths, which could not come haid upon any one, I should fancy. " In conclusion, I would urge you not, to be out of spirits. Thit is the way to fail. Somehow, or another, we shall get up the thing ; t and the only wav is, if one, fails, to try another.— Yours very truly, : ' "Rvqb H. LusK. 1 ''

It was after I received the letter that I threw up the matter, with Mr. Lusk's consent. I gave the ord*r for the printing, aud was responsible for the payment. By Mr. Gillies : I don't remember what time on the 21st I got that lettsr. I put iv the advertiiement after! Hal seen Mr. Lusk. In using the words, "by consent," I meant that Mr. Lusk raised no objection iv the matter. Mr. Gillies laid that all the talk of hii learned friend as to this being » " bubble company" wa« mere bunkum, and meant nothing at all. Mr. Gar iick iras a slwrebroker, and was no doubt very glad to try to get up a oomjiany to atari; a fiesh newspaper. It was all iv tk« way of hi* trade to g«t up companies — aharebrokers were even not averse to getting up "bubble eompanie»''a» long M it paid them. No doubt, the promoters felt that they might have ■omething better than the existing newspapers, and were really desirous of getting up another newspaper. Mr, Gar lick had at first gone into the affair very heartily, as he was to get £10 for canvassing, £15 if successful, and a permanent secretaryship to boot — a very good inducement for a sharebr >ker like Mr. Garlick. Doubtless, if the oompauy had bteu success* fill, Mr. Garliok would have been independent of the existing newspapers in the matter of the insertion of his share-list, jßy Mr. Garlitk's consent his name was put to the prospectus, but as soon as he went to try and canvass on the Wednesday round a few of the merchants he found that the existing interests were too strong, that he might get into a bad state himself by the affair, and thttt unless absolutely successful he might seriously injure himself. Instead of carrying out honestly his engagement, he simply tried for half one day and part of another day, and then told Mr. ln-k and Dr. Giles that he would throw up the affair, giving as his reason that he must go out of it, as it would be injurious to his own business. He was afraid that the newspapers would exclude his share list. The defence, therefore, was that Mr. Garliclc was not entitled to the remuneration promised by the agreement, for he had never fairly and substantially tried to procure shareholders If he (Mr. Gillies) proved that Mr. Uarliuk gave as his reason for ceasing to carry on the work that he was afraid of the consequence* to his own business, plaintiff would not be entitled to recover anything. It would be seen by the advertisement published by Mr. Garlick that he disclaimed all connection with the company. The advertisement did uot say, "from this day." iJe was sure anyone reading the advertisement would say, " \Vh«t au awful swiudle ! to put this tnau's name to the prospectus." Mr. Garlick disclaimed all connection — nor, ♦• any further connection " — with "the company, -whoso prospectus Ins been issued with my name as secretary pro tern." Anyone reading the adveitisement must have concluded that the use of Mr. Garlick's name was quite unauthorised, aud he remembered that that was his own impression on roadiug the advertisement. Of course, after the advertisement there wan no hope for the company being got up, aud by putting in such a uotice Mr. Garliclc quite destroyed any work be might have done. Mr. Lusk hid had nothing to do with the advertisement, but simply told Mr. Garlick that he must just take his own way, But certainly he never supposed that Mr. Garlick, after undertaking to do his best, would turn round and do all he could to damn the company by such au advertispinent as that Mr. Garlick was not to get £10 for canvassing a few merchants and a few of what he called the "middle class." The item of 4*. for the 500 envelopes oould not be claimed, as the agreement stated that Mr. Lusk would be responsible merely for the priuting that might be needed. Mr. Gillies then c tiled the following witnesses: — Hugh H. Lusk, defeudant, deposed : I have paid the accounts for the printing of the prospectuses, and other accounts claimoi from me in this action by Mr. Garlick. In prosecution of the agieement Mr. Garlick ordered the printing of the prospectuses on Saturday afternoon, the 16th. On the Monday he told me he was about to go t* Coromandel, and probably could not do anything till the middle of the week. He did not go, and on Tuesday I saw him at five o'clock. He showed me the prospectuses, and told me he was going to address them. Ou Wednesday he said be had made a canvass in the coutse of the day without success, lie said he had seen four persons. He s&itl he wa? much disappointed about Mr. Firth, who he said be expected would be one of the principal supporters of the Advertiser Company. I said he should go from one end of the street to the other, without picking out individuals. I said I was not iv a position to give any names. He asked if I would put down the names of those I thought would become shareholders. J sent next morning the letter previously read, giving tin names of four who, I had been informed, or who had informed me, were favourable to starting another newspaper. In the afternoon, Mr. Garlick told me had made up his iniud to have nothing to do with it. He said, if he did not put in an advertisement on the Thursday evening, he felt sure his share-list would be excluded from the two newspapers. He said I had spoken of 250 shares, and asked for the names. I said I had no authority for giving the names. He cave no other reasoa for ceasing the canvass than that it would hurt his business. He said he was in expectation of getting, through one of the firm of Biown, Campbell, and Co., the secretaryship of another company, which he might lose if he went «n with " The Advertiser Compauy. " He showed me the advertisement. I said, "Well, if you are determined to destroy the thing, you may do it iv any way you like." Joseph Giles deposed : I agreed to take some shares in the proposed " Advertiser Company." On the 2]«t of Juno I went with Mr. Lu*k to Mr. Garlick's office, and tbe latter said the project must be dropped. He stated iv a general way that he had seen a great number of people, but when pressed he could only give three name?. He said he would hurt his own business, and that he was afraid his weekly report would be excluded from the newspapers. He said it might prevent him obtaining the secretaryship in another company, with which one of the firm of Browu and Campbell was connected. He said he had been led to believe that Mr. Lusk would^furnish him with names for 250 shares, but he did not giye that as a reason for withdrawing from the project. This concluded the evidence. Mr. Gillies said that, as Mr. Garlick had failed in his canvas*, he thought that it would be much better to succeed with hi* share-list on Saturday than to try to get up a new newspaper ; but not satisfied with merely withdrawing, he inverted an advertisement which utterly destroyed all chance of tbe project being carried out. After doing that, to come to Court and demand his £10, was a piece of the greatest impudence that ever was witnessed. It was in evidence t>>at Mr. Garlick had canvassed only four of the merchants, and then he destroyed, by the advertisement, all hope of the work being of the slightest beuefit to his employer*. Mr. Brookfield, in addressing the Court for the plaintiff, said that if a man contracted to build a bouse on the representation that there was a good foundation, and it turned out that that was not the case, he could demand payment. Mr. Lusk had represented that he had 250 names — good men — not men like Mr. Lusk, whom nobo.ty ku*w, except' that b« was the editor of the Soullurn Monthly Magazine, or something of that kiud. Tbe 250 names wan the foundation upon which Mr. Garlick was induced to go and canvass a whole townful of merchants. Bis friend seemed to go upon the assumption that Mr. Garlick was to go aud canvass for the £10. Now, there was no mention of cauvasaing ; tbe £10 was to be given for procuring shareholders; and £15 extra for tbe canvassing. The £10 was to be paid for the preliminary work which Mr. Gailick had done, ordering the printing] despatching the prospectuses, and then going round the town, wkere he met with but a cold inception. Then he told Mr. Lusk that uuless he gave mm some names he would cease to have anything to do with the matter. Then he found that he had been deceived, that there were no names, and that even the defendant's brother was ashamed to appear in the matter. If Mr. Lusk's own relatives were so ashamed *f the project, they could not be surprised that the Auckland public would have nothing to do with it. Hi* Worship said that the oa*« turned upon tbe first poition of the agreement —"I hereby agree to pay Mr. Garlick £10 for procuring shareholders, and to be responsible for the printing of prospectuses, forms of application, Ac." ]f Mr. Garlick had procured share- I holders, of course, he would hare been entitled to the judguieut of the Court. , The question was, did he faithfully carry out the terms of the agreement? They found that tbe agreement was dated the 15th of June — a Friday, and, after getting the prospectuses printed, then on the Wednesday following Mr. Garlick appeared to have moved in the matter, and made some kind of canvass. If he had left the matter to rest there, he might have betn entitled to judgment;j udgment ; but did he not undo all that had been done by the notice he had put iv the newspapers ? No oue reading that could believe fur a moment but that Mr. Garlick's name bad been attached to the prospectus without bis knowledge or conseut? Who would, in his senses, have anything to do with " The Advertiser Printing Company 7 after such,* notice as that ? 'Had Mr. Garlick not got afraid,

upon finding ho was burniug his fiuger* hy having to do with such matters, he might have recovered, but lie absolutely rendered the whole thing abortive l>y hn aubpequeut conduct, and then the whole project tumbled to the ground. The account* f«r the priutirg had been pad, but the 4-<. for envelopes might be held to come under the words "et ctetera" in the agreement, aud be a put thai; the defendant was responsible for. Even if plaintiff ha 1 been entitled to nothing, the Court would not have suffered the plaintiff to" pay the whole costs as the accounts fur the printing had been paid only the preceding afternoon. The judgment of the Court would be for the plaintiff for 45., aud thii would carry only the small costs of the summons. Judgment for plaintiff, 4s.

SBCEEHAN Y. KLAPRODI. Mr. Brookfield for plaintiff. Claim, £i 5a., for money lent. Judgment wm confessed. Mr. Brookfield applied for immediate execution, as defendant hud just been taken as a stowaway on board the 'Lord Ashley.'

DBIVWt Y. WfiIGHT. Clftira, £10 53., part; of ttaa price of a horse. Judgment for the plaintiff.

BLLT9 Y. SXINTON. Claim, £2 9a. 6J.; £2 Os. 6d. waa Admitted. Judgment for plaintiff. This concluded the busineai.