THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 9911, 24 January 1896, Page 2

THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

»atostrXte s s court.

(Wore E. H. Carew, Esq., 8.M.)

Thomson, Bridger,*and 00. V. Wm. N. Cathro (Lower Kyeburn).—Claim> £2? Is sd, on a promissory note.—'Judgment by default, with Ji£ 03 costs.

Same v. Jas. B. M. Templeton (Pembroke).—Claim, £lB 153 7d, goods supplied. —Judgment by default, with £1 costß. Same v. Elizabeth Knowles <Cardrona). Claim, £% 4s sd, goods supplied^-- 1 Judgment by default, with £1 4s costs. . John Shanks v. Daniel Kerr.—Claim, £8 7s 2d, balance of account.—Judgment by default, with £1 Os 3d costs.

S. R. Stedmanv. Ken Lewis.—Claim, £ls 8j 6.1, goods supplied.—Judgment by default, with £1 15s 6d costs. Thomas Hitchcock and Edward Hitchcock v. George Thomson. Claim for money lent and tent.—Defendant confessed that the amount claimed (£l7 10s) was due to the plaintiffs, but set up the following counterclaim :—On or about the 14th October last the plaintiffs wrongfully determined the defendant's tenancy of the premises in the Octagon, which had been let to him, and ejected the defendant therefrom, at the same time wrongfully converting to their own Use certain property belonging to ! the defendant—viz., a billiard table with pneumatic cushion*, three billiard balls, eleven cues, and other paraphernalia of a billiard loom. The damages sustained by the defendant by reason of such wrongful acts amount to the sum of £l5O, and from this the defendant deducts the sum of £ol) in which he is indebted to the plaintiffs for money lent by them to him, and claims to recover from the plaintiffs the balance—viz., £IOO as damages. Mr A. S. Adams appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Sim for defendant. The counterclaim being the matter to be adjudicated upon, Mr Sim began. The facts, he Said, were as follow : The Hitchcocks were lessees of a building in the Octagon. They carried on business themselves in the lower portion of the premises ; the upper floor Was a billiard room, let to Mrs Clark, and let by her to one Williamson and the defendant Thomson. They had at the time two tables belonging to Mrs Clark. In April or May of last year they began to build a table themselves. That was the table in this action. Mrs Clark's tenancy was to expire on the 31st of August. Shortly before that it was arranged between Williamson and Thomson, the proprietors, that Williamson shouldsellout his interest toThomsonfor£4o, Thomson undertaking to discharge all the liabilities of the firm, which consisted of a claim for rent. Edward Hitchcock arranged to lend £SO to Thomson. Of this, £4O was to be used to pay Williamson and the other £lO was to be applied to the payment of the rent on the 20th August. When the money was paid, Thomson at Hitchcock's request signed a document by which Thomson purported to sell the table to Alfred Hitchcock, brother to the plaintiffs, for £SO. That document was signed by Thomson, but, as a matter of fact, there was no sale at all to Alfred Hitchcock. It was simply a mortgage between the parties. Thomson was told there would be a proper bill of sale, and that he had better sign the document in the meantime. Iu January, however, plaintiffs' solicitors, Messrs Adams Bros., took up the position that the table- was sold. He (Mr Sim) thought he should be able to prove that it was not a sale, but simply a mortgage transaction, and if His Worship was satisfied of that, then, accocdiog to a decision by Mr Justice Denniston, the document was absolutely void as between the parties. This arrangement was made on the 20th August. Thomson still continued to carry on business and receive moneys for the use of the table. Mrs Clark's tenancy expired on the 3lst August. It was proposed that the table should be bought by Hitchcock Bros., but they could not come to terms, and it was agreed between Thomson and the Hitchcocks that they should build two new tables, and that Thomson should have a new tenancy for twelve months at the old rent. Thomson would then have three tables—the one they built themselves and the two that the Hitchcocks were to build. Thomson kept going until the 14th October, when Edward Hitchcock turned the key in the door and told Thomson that the premises were closed up—he took possession, in fact, of the room and all the articles in it, and Thomson was not allowed to carry on. Since then, it was understood, the table had been sold to Watson Bros.—George Thomson, the defendant, said in the course of his evidence that while carrying on with Williamson they made enough to build the new table, aud that with the one table alone he made expenses. If Hitchcocks had carried out their agreement to supply him with two tables he thought he would have had them free in eighteen months or two years. Crossexamined by Mr Adams, witness said he did not remember Hitohcook telling him about the middle of October that Haynes had bought them out, aud that they had to the end of the month to square up. If anyone said there was such a statement he (witness) would say he was making a mistake. There might have been something of the sort said the day before the ejection. Witness did not pay any rent for the room from the time of the" alleged' new tenancy to the day of ejection Up to the date of the summons witness had not made any claim for damages for the conversion of the table or for ejectment. He did not know when Mr Watson came and played a game on one of the tables, and asked questions about it, that he had come as a purchaser.—Henry Williamson, previously in partnership with Thomson, said in the course of his evidence that he estimated the value of the table in dispute at £7O or £75. It was now in Watson's Hotel, the cover being off and the slates exposed. They were not level. The slates were level when the table was in the room at the Octagon. Cross - examined : He had to use two odd slates. Two were of a different thickness from the others. Mr Hardie sept a man to level them down. Hitchcock offered £l5O for the three tables —Mrs Clark's two and the one built by witness.—Robert Hardie, slater, said that he supplied Thomson and Williamson with slates for their table. He supplied two lots. The first were first-class English slates, and the second lot, which were Castlemaine | slates, were also good, but not so good as the first ones. James Glossop, | commission agent, said that he had considerable experience in buying and selling billiard tables. He went up to see a table in the Octagon room, and was told by Williamson it was sold to Thomson. Hitchcock nodded to indicate that Thomson was the purchaser. He valued the table at £BO. J —John A. Jackson, tobacconist, also gave evidence; and Reuben Hawkes, lessee of the billiard room at the Criterion, said the table was as good a one to play on as he had ever eeen. Including fittings, he reckoned the market value £IOO, and he thought it would be worth £SO more if it carried the name of a celebrated maker.—Mr Adams, in opening the case for the defence, said that no evidence had been led to connect Thomas Hitchcock with any wrongful acts (supposing there were such wrongful acts), and he intended to move at once for a nonsuit so far as that defendant was concerned. He would also submit that the arrangement suggested by the defendant was utterly absurd, and, even if it really existed, could Dot have been enforced. Defendant and his witness Williamson said that the two tables which Hitchcock was to build at a cost of £l6O were to be sold to defendant at £l5O, and that Hitchcock was to lend him £IOO to purchase with and take 6 or 8 per cent, for the money. Such an agreement would be ab surd, and could not be enforced, for there was no consideration for the loan of £IOO ; moreover, there was no agreement suggested on the part of Thomson to purchase, and no agreement so far as could be discovered for the building of the tables and the sale to Thomson. Learned couusel proceeded to argue the case from this and other points of view, and on concluding His Worship said he would hear the evidence before deciding the questions of law.—E. C. Reynolds was under examination at 4.30 p.m. CITY POLICE COUBT. (Before Mr J. Hyman, J.P.) Drunkenness. Emma Pame.ll and Richard King were convicted and discharged ; Annie Mains wa3 fined sa, in default twenty-four hours' imprisonment; Fanny Nettle/old was fined 10s, in default three days' imprisonment,

A By-law Gash. —.Elka M* William, for allowing two jjewstp wander in the North-east Valley, va» fined 2s Bd. Cabmen is TaotTßiJß.— David M'Keum Was charged With)' ofa Saturday, 11th inet., plying for-hire withr a Carriage elsewhere than on an appointed standi Mr F. ft. Chapman appeared for Mr BarrOnj inspector of vehicles t defendant did hot appear.— Mr Chapniata said this was one of a series of bases of what was known as •'duck-shoving''—a process of getting passengers which operated very unfairly against the cabmen who wished to obey the by-law and keep on the stand in the ordinary way. As a result of the practice, the community ran some daoger, and the legitimate drivers were at a pecuniary loss. On Saturday, the 11th, there was bicycling going on at the Caledonian Ground, aud the defendant carried on a skirmishing by passing Up the town to Jacobs's corner, picking up passengers on the way, and plying for hire. As a rule the, cabmen obeyed the by* law, but some of them, and this man in particular, set it at naught on, the day in question.—lnspector Bafibn ami Constable Ferguson gave evidence as to seeing the defendant plying for hire.—Fined 10s and costs Alfred tlawkins Was similarly charged, and was defended by Mr Hanlon. —Mr Chapman said this was a similar case to the last, and evidence of the offence was given by Inspector Barron and Constable Ferguson.—Mr Hanlon said the defendant had a perfect right to do what he did. He left the stand at the Custom-house, went to Jacobs's picked up some passengers, and further up the street picked up some more, after which he went to the Caledonian Ground. That was a thing that was perfectly allowable, as long as the man did not stand longer than was necessary to pick up the passengers.—Mr Chapman said that if Mr Hanlon's interpretation of the by-law i were allowed none of the cabmen would go on the stand at all.—Fined 5s and costs (7s).

Alexander Robertson was similarly charged. He was defended by Mr Hanlon, and pleaded not guilty.—lnspector Barrou said the defendant left the stand in Princes street, went towards the Colonial Bank, and then turned aud stood at Jacobs's corner and other places, pickiug up passengers. —Constable Ferguson also gave evidence.—Mr Hanlon said the defendant went to the fountain with a couple of passengers, and on going up Princes street again he stood for two minutes at Jacobs's corner, where he was blocked by a cab driven by one Phimester. This wis the sole offence with which the man was charged. As soon as Phimester moved away he took his cab away. By Mr Chapman : Witness did not return up Princes street on the driving side of the road, but on the righthand side. He had to go up on that side to allow him to turn his drag.—Fined 5s and costs (7s). John Clifford was similarly. charged. He was defended by Mr Hanlon, and pleaded guilty.—Mr Chapman said the man had not previously been before the Court. —Fined 53 and costs (7s). Joseph Gl\fford, similarly charged, was also defended by Mr Hanlon, and pleaded not guilty.—This case was similar to the previous ones, and evidence concerning it Was given by Inspector Barron and Constable Ferguson.—Defendant admitted stopping at Jacobs's corner. Oneof hispaisenge-swantcd togo to Mr Jacobs's fora packet of cigarettes, and while the man was in the shop witness waited for him.—Mr Hanlon complained that the inspector gave the defendant no notice that he would summon him. If he had done so defendant might have subpoenaed the passenger in question to corroborate what had been stated.—The Bench thought it would have been better if the inspector had told the man he would be summoned. The circumstances in the case were somewhat different to those in the other cases, and the charge would be dismissed.

Two charges against James Ji. Pliimesttr and Andrew Dbkaon were withdrawn.