DISTRICT COURT.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3104, 9 June 1881, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

THURSDAY, JUNE 9

(Before Hia Honor Judge Kenny.) IN BANKEtJPTCT. Peter Hansen, a debtor, applied in person for an order of discharge. Some of the necessary affidavits bad not been filed, and His Honor suggested that the applicant should employ a solicitor, and have the application made in proper order. Mr Lascellea, on behalf of R. D. Maney, an arranging debtor, applied to have the case adjourned fora week. The adjournment was granted. CIVIL CASES. Leonard v. Miller and Potts.—Mr Lascelles appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Lee for the defendante.—Mr Lee submitted tbat there was no cause of action ; that there was no obligation on the part of the defendants to find a purchaser at £100 ; and even supposing he did sell for less than £100 the plaintiff was not damaged thereby, inasmuch as the principal was not bound.—His IjTonor held that this was premature, anp that the Court would hear the evidence.— Joseph Leonard, sworn, said he j gave Messrs Miller and Potts instructions about the disposal of a leasehold in Waipawa. He told Mr Potts to se !1 the property for £100. He handed hiijn the lease at the time. Sent a letter ta defendants containing these instructions. (Letter put in.) Mr Potts told him that the property was sold by Mr Routledge to McDonald by mistake for £-21. The first intimation be had of the mistake was by letter from Mr Potts abou: two months after the sale. Mr Potts stated to him verbally that the property was not sold. Austin Nicholls wis hia tenant, and was living in the place. He had received no rent since the pla:e was sold. McDonald told him that lie had purchased the property. —Cr jsa-ex-amined by Mr Lee : He heard from McDonald that he bad bouglit the property soon after the sale. Did not tell McDonald that the place wag sold asainst his instruction?. Did Dot receive reni from Nicholls for some time before the sale. There were* some arrears. Some rent has been paid to McDonald. McDonald told Nicbolls that he had bought the place. I c had advanced money to Nichoils to pay McDonald rent. He did this to enable Nichoils to sell the stock which belonged to him (witness). He had a receipt frOna McDonald for three weeks rent. He had not signed a transfer to McDonald. He had paid £50 for the property, and had spent £50 iv improvements. In letting the store for 10s per week it was on the understanding that

be would sell his (witnesses') good:?. He would not have let it at that price except on that understanding. — Re-examined by Mr Laecelles : He advanced Nicholls the rent to pay to McDonald to protect his own goods in the store.— Peter Samuel M'Donald, sworn, said he attended the auction on the Ist of February. He bid for the lease of a property. Mr Routledge was auctioneer. He bid ;£gl, and it was knocked down to him for that. He f=igned a etatnpgd document at the office. (Document put in.) He had a casual conversation with Mr Potts, who said there had been some mistake abont the sale, bnt he would write about it. He afterwards wrote to him. (Letter put in.) He instructed Mr Carlile to apply for a conveyance, but had not yet received it. He bad received three weeks rent for the property. The receipt for the rent was in hia handwriting. Immediately after the sale he gave potice to the tenants that be had purchased the place, and was to get the rent. He claimed the property now.— W. Routledge, sworn, said he acted for Messrs Miller and Potts on the Ist of February at a sale at Waipawa. He was not instructed that there

was any reserve. He asked the clerk if there was any reserve, and he said "No, they must be sold." The entries in the book were made by the clerk.—Cross-examined by Mr Lee : The conditions of sale were read out at the sale. There were no epecial conditions as to title.—G. Potts, examined by Mr Lascelles, said the letter written to Mr M'Donald previous to sale was written by Mr Harding, who was in his employ at the time. (The letter gave particulars of the property in dispute.) Mr Routledge acted as his agent at the sale on Ist February. He had instructions to sell Mr Leonard's property for not les« than £100. He had a verbal communication with Mr Leonard about the property since the sale. Austin Nicholls is at present in possession of the property. He told the clerk about the reserve, and Mr Leonard's letter was on the desk.— Cross-examined by Mr Lee : He gave no instructions that the property was to be sold without reserve. He told Leonard that the property had been sold by mistake, and asked him if he would take the £21. He refused, and then he (wituess) wrote to M'Donald. He never instructed Mr Harding to write the letter to M'Donald.—After counsel on both sides had addressed the Court, His Honor nonsuited the plaintiff with costs.