SUPREME COURT-CIVIL SITTINGS.

Evening Star, Issue 7647, 25 June 1888, Page 4

SUPREME COURT-CIVIL SITTINGS.

Saturday, Jl'.ve 2:>

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.)

Charles Stevhen Reeves v. William Lane.—Claim, L2OB 17s Sd, balance alleged to be due under a deed of covenant.

Sir R, Stout appeared for the plaintiff; Mr Iluggitt for defendant.

Counsel for phiitttill' intimated that the parties had agreed, with the consent of the Court, to refer the matter in dispute to an accountant. Order made accordingly.

John' Leaoii Bittkuwofu'ji v. Rujikkt Scui'.ii:.—Claim, L 175 Us, on certain bills of exchange. Mr appeared for th? plaintiff; Mr Thornton for defendant.

Mr Thornton said that he wa9 all prepared to go on with the case, with the exception that one material witness, Mrs Scobie, was unable to attend. Thin arose through certain oilers for a settlement having been submitted by defendant to plaintiff, and though defendant had reason to think that the oflora would b;; accepted, ho had received no notice from the plaintiff of acceptance or rejection.

Mr Haggitt said that his learned friend knew all the week that the case was fixed for to-day, and could therefore have had his witness in attendance. Mr Thorn!on said that if lie had received notice of rejection before 5 p.m. yesterday he could have telegraphed to Mrs Scobie, who resides at Clinton, and she could have been in attendance this morning. Me would much prefer that the case should be adjourned till Monday. Mr Haggitt urged that the ease should go on at once, as plaintiff had to leave for England on Wednesday morning.

Ilia Honor remarked that there was a great deal of bankruptcy business on Monday.

After further discussion it was agreed that Mr Haggitt should open the pleadings, and that the case should then be adjourned till 2 p.m. on Monday. The plaintiff's statement of claim set forth that defendant was indebted to him in the amount of L 475 lis, on four bills of exchange—the first for LlO3, due on January 4 of the present year, and three for L 124 3s 8d each on February 4, March 4, and April 4 respectively. The statement of defence set forth that up to the month of December last plaintiff and two other persons were guarantors to the Colonial Bank for the defendant's overdraft, and defendant had deposited with plaintiff certain securities to indemnify him and his co-guarantors against loss under the security ; that defendant was then indebted to plaintiff on, inter alia, the bills of exchange now sued on ; that in December plaintiff and defendant agreed that the arrangement should be cancelled and another arrangement made whereby (1) defendant's indebtedness to the National Bank in lieu of the Colonial Bank should be guaranteed by plaintiff; (2) defendant's indebtedness to the plaintiff on bills of exchange and promissory notes to be capitalised, the bills and notes to be delivered up and cancelled, and the total amount to be paid off by monthly instalments of Lls each ; (3) the total indebtedness to bear interest at 7 per cent, per annum ; (4) defendant to mortgage to plaintiff the securities referred to, such securities to apply to the gross indebtedness and to include, but not be limited to, the, bank overdraft; (5) in the event of the bank calling up the overdraft the plaintiff to pay the same in terms of his guarantee, and the defendant to have six months' notice from plaintiff before being required to repay him —such time being for the purpose of enabling defendant to cause thesecuritiesto be realised to the best advantage, and so prevent them from being slaughtered. Pursuant to the foregoing arrangement, the defendant, on December 16, by deed mortgaged totheplaintiff the securities aforesaid; the mortgage was on its face expressed to be a mortgage to secure the payment on demand of defendant's general indebtedness to plaintiff, including the bunk guaranty, but the plaintiff promised that he would give defendant a letter, or sign an agreement, embodying clauses 2, 3, and 8, as ho (plaintiff) deemed it inexpedient to let such provisions appear on the face of the mortgage : the defendant executed the mortgage in the full faith and confidence that the plaintiff would sign such letter, or execute suoh agreement, as aforesaid, but the plaintiff refuses to do so, though retaining the benefit of the mortgage ; the defendant is, and always has Been, ready and willing to carry out the said agreement and arrangement. The defendant further, by way of counterclaim, repeats all tho paragraphs of the foregoing statement of defence and prays judgment; (1) That plaintiff be ordered to !

execute the agreement referred to ; the form of such agreement to be settled by the Court or the Registrar. (2) That plaintiff be ordered to deliver up to be cancelled the promissory notes now sued on by him in this action, and all other bills and notes agreed to be delivered up and cancelled as alleged. (3) Also such further and other relief as the Court may consider defendant entitled to.

The plaintiff, in reply to this counterclaim, denied all the allegations of the statement of defence which are repeated in the defendant's counter-claim, and said that there was never any such new agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant as was alleged.