DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2633, 14 September 1882, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

CHBISTOHTJEOH.

Wednesday, Sbfxbkbeb 13. WILMOT V KING.

The commencement of this oase was given in our issue of yesterdey. The following is its conclusion:

M. Laccister, crass examined by Mr Ocrr— Mr King said he wanted the premisei, as hit leaie was up. O. W. Parker, bailiff, deposed that he want to Madame Wilmot's premise* in High street about half-past 5 on the evening of Augnit 2nd. [Witness detailed what occurred then J He was certain he never used the language imputed to him by Madame Wilmot. The goods were of trifling value, not exceeding £4 10s, excepting the piano.

W. 8. King deposed that he was the defendant. |_The evidence given related chiefly to the tenancy, and the various payments made on Recount thereof.] The statement that he gave a receipt to Madame Wilmot for £1 with an idea to deceive Messrs Htrmtn and Stevens as to the weekly rental was untrue. When the bailiff was in possession he offered to accept £5 13s 6d as payment in full if the plaintiff would leave the premise?. She could only pay him £6, whioh he accepted to get rid of her. He did not make use of any offensive expression to plaintiff, nor did he threaten to turn her into the street. The key of the premises was sent him on the 30th or 31tt of August, through the Post Office. Mr Oorr cross-examined this witness, but failed to elicit anything of importance. Percy Francis deposed that he was an employe of defendant, and that on sundry ocoasions he received monies from Madame Wilmot on Mr Ring's account. This was the defendant's case. Learned counsel having addressed the Oourt, His Honor, having oommxnted on the evidence, gave judgment for 10s. No order as to costs.

Tht/bsdav, Septekbhb 14. | Before His Honor Judge Ward,j

HTNCHOLUPB T B. WILKIN AND 00.

This was an aotion to recover £IOB, value of sheep sold and delivered. Mr Martin appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Stringer for the defendant. The counsel for the plaintiff having briefly stated the case, proceeded to call the following evidence. John Hincholiffe deposed that he farmer, and in June last Mr Tadball went to" ' pla ntiS's farm to buy about SOO merino sheep, and agreed to buy tham at 7s Si per head, premising to give a cheque on hit reaching Ghrietchuroh, which was not done. Ultimately witneis saw Tudball on the 24th June, when they both went to Messrs B. Wilkin and Oo.'s offiae, and satr Mr O'Connell, their managing clerk, when it wac anauged that a oheque would be given by the firm on the following Saturday, and their drover would take delivery on the-following Monday. The drover came and took delivery, giving his receipt. Witness went to Messrs Wilkin and Oo.'s effice on the following Saturday, when he was referred to Mr Tabart, who promised payment, but said that O'Connell had done the business without the tirnrs knowledge, and if payment was pressed for O'Connell would lose his situation. On the following Saturday witness again went to Messrs B. Wilkin and 00. for a cheque, when Mr Tabart asked for time. In reply to a question, that gentleman acknowledged that Mr Sheppard had paid them £6O for seme sheep. Finally he told Mr Tabart he should not call again. Afterwards he seat in his account. Witness would not have given Tudball credit. He delivered the sheep c%. account of the agreement with Mr O'Connell. Cross-examined by Mr Stringer—Understood that O'Connell would ba discharged because he had acted without authority. Never told Mr Peter Elder ho had Bold the sheep to Tudball. Tudball told witness that the sheep delivered were not those he had seen at his place. Ka-examined by Mr Martin—Tudball --. mitred afterwards, in the pretence of Mr Sheppard, that these were the same sheep. George O'Connell deposed that he is a olerk in the employ of Messrs B. Wilkin and Co., in the sales department, in which his duties were to reoeive entries for sales, &c. Tadball came with Hinchcliffe, and gave instructions to enter about 300 sheep for sale on the following Wednesday. The sheep were entered for sale in Tudball's name. Tudball instructed witness to pay HinchcliftV, and he undertook to pay him. The sheep were sold on account of whom it might concern. At this stage Mr Stiinger, in reply to h's Honor, said if his learned friend would aoc-pt a nonsuit, or accept the net proceeds arising from the sale of the sheep, and pay the cost of the aotion, the money would be handed over. Ho would call his Honor's attention to the action being for goods sold and delivered, whereat his clients as auctioneers did not buy, but received entries for sale by auction. Mr Martin having conferred with hi* olient, the examination was resumed. Witness received instructions from Tudball not to pay. Believed that Tudball had authorised Mr Tabart not to pay the money over. Mr George Harper had asked him if he (witness) would lose his situation about this matter, having been so told by plaintiff, when witness remarked he might have kept his mouth shut.

Cross examined by Mr Stringer—Messrs R. Wilkin and Co. never purchased sheep on their account, but sold them for persons making entries with them. Witness had no authority to purchase for the firm. Mr Martin addressed his Honor, agreeing to take a verdiot for the prooeeds of th» sale. His Honor gave judgment for net pi /cwds of sale, £67 16i 10d, plaintiff to pay counsel's fee, £3 7s, end cost of subposaaing one witness.

The remaining oases on the list, viz., Fisher v National Mortgage and Agency Company, and Trustees in Binkruptcy of J. H. Malone v Desborough, were not called on, the former cate being referred to arbitration, and the ls,tt?r caso was postponed till the next sktirg of the Court. The Court then rose.