Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.

THE COURTS-YESTERDAY.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before E. H. Carew, Esq,, R,M.) Smithson and Raymond v, J. Wilkie and another.—ln this previously beard case His Worship gave judgment as follows “ This is an action to recover possession of certain law books to the value of L 9. There is no dispute as to the ownership of the books, but defendants claim to detain the books by right- of lien for the price of binding. Plaintiffs agreed with Waller and Co. to bind the books, and Waller and Co. agreed with the defendants to do the work for them. Here there are two distinct contracts—plaintiffs with Waller and Co., and Waller and Co, with defendants—and it is not a question of agency. The admitted facts further show that Waller and Co. had no lien, because there was a stipulation between them and plaintiffs that the cost of binding should be set off against a debt by Waller aud Co. to plaintiffs. Under such an agreement there could be no lien the one debt extinguishes the other pro tenio as soon as it arises. (‘ Cross’s Law of Lien,’ page 14.) It is not a sufficient answer to plaintiff’s claim that defendants have bound aud improved the boohs at Waller and Co.’s request, and detained the books until they are paid for. A carrier who carries goods for a lessee of them has no lien as against the owner. (‘Angeli on Carriers,’ 357, note 4). The town agent of a country solicitor has a lien upon papers which the latter places in his hands in a particular case, but the lien in such a case is limited to the debt actually due from the clients to the country solicitor; so that if the client pays the country solicitor the lien is exchanged, for the country solicitor can give the town agent no lien which he do6s not himself possess. (Waller v. Holmes, 30 L.J., Chancery 24.) If Waller and Co. had merely acted as agents for either of the parties the case would have been difficult, but the agreement as to the mode of payment—that is by set-off in itself—excludes any question of agency. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendants ordered to give possession of the books claimed to plaintiffs, which I assess to the value of L 9, forthwith ; and to pay costa, LI Os 6d.” George Wallace v. Henry C. Bennett.— Claim, L 6 10s, value of a cow, the property of plaintiff, which the defendant converted to his own use.—There was a misunderstanding as to the appearance of counsel, and plaintiff was acoordingly nonsuited.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18890801.2.2

Bibliographic details

THE COURTS-YESTERDAY., Evening Star, Issue 7974, 1 August 1889

Word Count
431

THE COURTS-YESTERDAY. Evening Star, Issue 7974, 1 August 1889

Working