THE COURTS.-TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 7751, 24 October 1888, Page 3

THE COURTS.-TO-DAY.

SUPREME COURT.-CIVIL SITTINGS

(Before Mr .lustice Williams.)

HENKY DRIVER V. CIEORUK CARSON AND JO#N CARSON.

Sir R. Stout, with him Mr F. R. Chapman, appeared for plaintiff; Mr Frasor for defendants.

This case had been before His Honor at a previous sitting of the Court, and was adjourned till today for the production of further evidence required by His Honor. Evidence was given by John Roberts and John Thomas Wright. After counsel had addressed the Court, His Honor intimated that he would give judgment in a day or two. Hanlon v. The Mayor, Councillors, AND BtJRGESSES OF THE BOROIfCH OF WEsT Harbor.—Motion for an order for writ of mandamus commanding defendants to amend the burgess list of the borough by adding thereto the name of the plaintiff as owner and occupier of allotment 1, Jenkins's sub division of Rothesay, and by erasing therefrom the name of John Archibald Duncan Adams as owner aud occupier of the said allotment; also for an order directing the defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs of the statement of claim herein and the said motion and the costs incidental thereto, upon the grounds appearing in the statement of claim. Mr A. Adams appeared in support of the motion ; Mr J. Macgregor opposed. Hia Honor gave judgment in favor of defendants, dismissing the motion, with costs. , RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Before Mr W. Hutchison and Dr Hislop, Justices.) Munro, Dunne, and Co. v. S. Slesinger.— Claim, L2O, for printing pamphlets.—ln this previously-heard case their Worships now delivered judgment, nonsuiting plaintiffs without costs. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.) Sarah Wilkinson v. G. A. Tapper.— Claim, L3B lis 7d, for breach of contract. Dr Fitchett appeared for plaintiff, Mr Solomon for defendant.—ln this adjourned case the defence was now proceeded with, the sontention advanced being in the first place that the defendant had not agreed to be bound by the penalties; secondly, that as there was an alternative between the plans and ■pecifications and the building, defendant was relieved from his bargain. Evidence was given by defendant, J. T. Ross, J. Ahern, and J. Morgan.- His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for LlB 9s 7d, and 008tS. Isaac Isaacs v. William D. Sutherland. — Claim, L 25, for the alleged wrongful conversion to defendant's use of an organ, and damages for the detention thereof. Mr Solomon appeared for plaintiff, Mr W. D. Stewart for defendant.—Mr Solomon said that plaintiff was a money-lender; defendant was a grocer, or at any rate a seller of organs amongst •ther things. He sold an American •rgan to Mrs Ferry on the 4th February. This organ was given as security to plaintiff by bill of sale. Subsequently this organ was taken possession of by defendant, who refused to give it up.—Margaret Ferry, wife of William Ferry, laborer, had an American organ over which she gave a bill of sale to Mr Isaacs. It was bought from Mr Sutherland about the 4th February. She got Ll7 on the bill of sale, and out of this money paid L 8 to Mr Sutherland. Between the time of the purchase of the organ and giving the bill of sale Bhe received an account for groceries from Mr Sutherland. The organ had been in her possession for over two months when the bill of sale was given. It was taken away by the person who brought it. He came in and said that he had been ordered by Mr Sutherland to take it away. The organ had been bought on witness's own account. She had no wish that Mr Isaacs should take proceedings against Mr Sutherland. Mr Isaacs had been threatening her as to what he would do, Crossexamined -. Witness was not quite sure what she owed Mr Isaacs; it was a good deal. She had not paid Isaacs any money except for interest since April, 1887. Mr Sutherland had pressed her to take the organ, saying it would be a nice thing for her daughters. Mr Sutherland had not said that she could take the organ on trial. No price was mentioned, and she did not fenow what she was to pay until the organ came in. When the shopman came for the organ he did not say that he was ordered to take it away because witness had not arranged terms. She had not told Mr Sutherland nor his shopman that she had not given a bill of sale ever the organ. Re-examined: She had been in Mr Sutherland's shop a great many times between the time of receiving and parting with the organ, and not a word was «versaid to her about not having bought the organ.—Mary Williams, a married daughter of Mrs Ferry's, said that she had heard her mother pressed to buy the organ, and never heard a word about it being taken oa approval. Mr Sutherland said Mrs Ferry could pay for it as she liked.—Agnes Gooseman, another daughter of Mrs Ferry, gave corroborative evidence. —J. W. Kerr was also called to give evidence as to the carting away of the organ.—lsaac Isaacs, the plaintiff, said that he lent Mrs Ferry Ll7 in cash, and Bhe had paid L 5 and L 3 back on March 13 and April 18 respectively. L 6 was charged for interest, so she owed L 23, less LB. Witness had seen Mr Sutherland lately, and i he said that if the woman had given him Ll he would have said ne more about it. Mr Sutherland had offered to take over the bill of eale and pay witness his money, but witneas had refused to do this without Mrs Ferry's .consent. Cross-examined : For a loan of Ll7 witness had charged L 6, paying all expenses himself. He was not an arithmetician, and aould not say what the rate of interest was. —Mr Stewart asked witness to show his book Btating his transactions with Mrs Ferry.— Witness said that he would show the entry in connection with this transaction, if that would suit Mr Stewart.—Mr Btewart objected to be dictated to by witness.—His Worship said that witness had a perfeot right to see that Mr Stewart did not search the book more than was necessary.—Witness said that the landed cost of the organ was Lls or Ll6.—Mr Stewart, in opening the case for defendant, eaid that evidence would show that this organ was not sold to Mrs Ferry, but that she took it on trial, the terms of payment to be arranged subsequently in case ahe took it. Until the terms of i payment were arranged that organ was not Mrs Ferry's property. It was simply sent on approval, subject to terms of payment being arranged if she decided to take it. He,(Mr Stewart) submitted that plain-! tiff had no property in this organ, the rule being that Mrs Ferry could not give a better title than she had herself. This was nothing but an attempt on Mrlsaacs's part to "run Mrs Ferry at the expense of honest tradesmen. He held Mrs Ferry's bill of sale for L2OO, but made no attempt to realise on it, his purpose being to keep Mrs Ferry under his thumb, with the object of endeavoring to defraud Mr Sutherland of his organ. He (Mr Stewart) submitted that His Worship, sitting as a magistrate, would not allow Mr Isaacs to go on as a kind of harpy on society. It was not the first case of the kind that Mrllsaacs had been mixed up with. Plaintiff: Never.—Mr Solomon: Just keep quiet;. I'll have something to say presently.Mr Stewart further submitted that plaintm was prevented from succeeding by the technical objection that he had not formally made demand from Mrs Ferry. He could not recover until he had made demand and Mrs Ferry had made default.—Mr Solomon would like to see this proposition clearly shown.—Mr Stewart was proceeding to further comment on Mr Isaacs's conduct, when Mr Solomon interrupted with "We have had enough of this bombastic nonsense. We knew very well what to expect when you and Mr Isaacs came' into contact, without any question of law at aIL"—W. D. Sutherland, defendant, «aid that he sent the organ to Mrs Ferry on approval; there was no actual sale. No mice was agreed upon, but Mrs Ferry agreed to take the organ on approval, and witoMS sent a memorapdum as to the price

when the organ was delivered. It was always left undecided whether Mrs Ferry was or was not to buy the organ. It was only a fortnight ago that he knew of plaintiffs claim. [The case was proceeding when we went to press.)