MAGISTERIAL.

Marlborough Express, Volume XXV, Issue 22, 26 January 1889, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

Friday, Januaby 25. (Before Mr J. Allen, E.M.) CIVIL CABES. Thompson v. Holmes and Bell. The cross-examination of Mr Holmes was resumed after we went to press, as follows: Certainly we oharge ten Ser cent for selling m Sydney or [elbourne. Presumably the £30 receipt was a settlement of the current account. Jf we had no further dealings | m flax with the def endants we should have had a balance to their debit. I believe we had previous dealings with Noble. He then bought about two tons. I should take no particular notice of the handwriting of a customer. (Counsel wanted to show that if Holmes and Bell were held to be agents, his clients would be shown to be losers through their agents' negligence.) MrMcCalluir: Did you never discuss the sale of the flax with Mr Nevison, a partner m Thomson's mill ? Witness : I never did sir, and I tell you again I object to your making these insinuations, which are really against your own client. The breeze having partially subsided Mr McCallum proceeded, but the crossexamination was a good deal interfered with by the irritation which kept on manifesting itself between the parties. Counsel : You assumed the price you would get. Witness : We did not assume, sir. Counsel:- Oh, then, you rushed at it blindfold. • Witness : Oh ! no we are not all prophets like you, you know. We have to trust to events. Scenes of this kind succeeded one another with rapidity. Ec-examined : The flax was repudiated on the ground of bad quality. We are prepared at any time to sue Noble for damages if authorised by Thompson and Co. I discussed sales occasionally with Nevison. In the Loan and Mercantile Agency service, what was taken m at this place was generally sent to other branches, m larger centres. To the Bench : We never have bought a bale of flax from Thompson ; they came m and asked for a cheque, that was why we paid over the amount ; the payment was an advance, as we always regarded such payments; there was no delay m offering the tlax again, after the repudiation. This was the case for defendant. Counsel then addressed the Bench. His Worship reserved judgment till Monday. Hart and North v. Bright and Co. Claim, £1 Us -id, balance of account for timber.

Mr Rogers appeared for plaintilf, for whom judgment was given, with costs and professional fee. E. H. Stratford v. C. Nesbit. Claim, £5, value of a dog. Mr Conolly for plaintiff, and Mr Rogers for defendant. Judgment for plaintiff for amount and costs. Markmann v. S. Old. Claim, £6 13s, judgment summons. The judgment creditor being unable to offer any evidence as to the debtor's means, the case was ordered to stand over for a month. t&* For continuation oj reading matter see fourth vaqe.