THE Inangahua Times. PUBLISHED TRI-WEEKLY. WEDNESDAY, MARCS 21, 1877.

Inangahua Times, Volume III, Issue 92, 21 March 1877, Page 2

THE Inangahua Times. PUBLISHED TRI-WEEKLY. WEDNESDAY, MARCS 21, 1877.

The exigencies of the occasion rendet it necessary for us to hold over our report of yesterday's pio-nio, as well as other local matter. Mr George Wise, Honorary Secretary of the Reefton Hospital, desire to acknowledge tbe receipt of £7 10s to the funds of that in* stitution, the amount here stated being the sum realised by the raffle at Cam bell's Hotel of ft number of carved headed walking sticks wbioh were presented to the Hospital by a fentleman in town. A telegram was received in Reefton yester* day from Ahaara, stating that a man named David Ryan, of Teviot. dropped dead dn the previous day while working in his claim, Mr Warden Shaw left for Ahaura early this morning for the purpose of holding an inquest ui'on the body, and it has therefore been necessary to adjourn the sittings of the Assess* ment Court until Thursday next (to-morrow) at 11 a.m. Judgment was given in the Resident Magistrate's Court, yesterdij, in ra the petition ag»inst the return of Mr M. Byrne. His Worship dismissed the petition, thus coi firming Mr Byrne's election for the Riding of Antonio's. In the District Court, at Hokitika, his Honor Judge Weston delivered judgment in the case of Jones v. Franklyn. The judgment of the Court was that the name of Mr J. W. Jones, junr., be removed from the register of the North Star Company (in liquidation) and that of Frederick Franklyn be inserted thereon in lieu thereof. Ten guineas costs were awarded the liquidator. In the Resident Magistrate's Court, yesterday, his Worship delivered judgment in the case of Bank of $es Zealand v Reeves. The judgment was as follows :— ln this case the Court reserved judgment for more mature consideration of the first nonsuit point raised by Mr Staite for defendant, viz, reading the 23rd section of the Act Of 1867 by the lisjht of the evidence elicited on cross-examination, whether tho plaintiffs had divi led their cause of action for the purpose of bringing two or more suits in a Court of this jurisdiction Ihe authorities I have been able to consalt, as wall as those referred to in the course of this argument, a>'e very numerous and varie d i ntheir application, and it is exceedingly difficult to deduce from them any principle that would exactly govern this particular caceTbe Court has been therefore compelled to frame its opinion more upon a general conclusion of what intent and force the Legislature conferred upon this section than for any distinct judicial decision, and this is the more to be regretted as the point of law involved is . one that we may readily suppose may occur in innumeraSle simple contract oases. It appears upon the evidence that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff for money lent »nd advanced in the ordinary course of banking ■ business, in a sum slightly exceeding £100. The excess is abandoned, and he is sued at present for the full amount of this Court's jurisdiction. A defence upon the merits «ra* hinted at by Mr Staite by his line flf examination, but neither the defendant nor any witness on his behalf was called. It ap» pears, however, upon the notes of the Court, that the plaintiff* had in addition to the sum sued for another claim against the defendant for money advanced by them in the way of banking business. This second account Mr Pitt, for the bank, sought carefully to digtinguiah, on fhe ground, Ist, that it was an advance made upon sp oial contract and for specific uses ; and, 2nd, that in the books of the bank it had always been treated as a totally separate and distinct account, and thit defead^nt could not trail himself of one

or|other indifferently. Now, could theio allegations have been substantiated by evidence that would lead the Court to the opinion that those two account were the results of separate and individual contracts, and in short could Mr Pitt hare supported his theories by testimony, the Court would hate hud no difficulty ia determining the matter ; but this was not done. The agent of the branch in Reefton, Mr Campbell, was called, and he gave what I have no doubt was a substantially correct account of the whole transaction. But how was his knowledge acquired?— by forming his own conclusions from an inspection of the bools of the bank, and from conversations with others. His opinion tnerefore, although perfleetly reliable, is unfortunately, legally speaking, of no assistance, and I take it the Court must assume everything in favor of defendant until the contrary is proved. As was pertin« ently observed by Mr Stain, what guarantee would the defendant have that the account nailed "B" would not be sued for upon judgment being entered for plaintiffs in this action. To illustrate the matter— would it be possible for » storekeeper to sue a customer separately upon two accounts which were divided simply for the convenience of his own business, and not by arrangement with his debtor ? In this matter the execution of law is retarded by reason of the point of law railed by the defendant, and by failure of ' proof as part of the plaintiffs to negative I presumptive evidence. They are therefore nonsuited, but without costs. I _ «-.,, , ii==g