Magistrate's Court, Foxton.

Manawatu Herald, 21 April 1896, Page 2

Magistrate's Court, Foxton.

-♦ (Before R. L. Stanford, Esq., 8.M.) Saturday, 18th Apbil. cnm. cases. John A. Perreau v. John A. Anderson. — Claim £58 4s 9d. Mr Hurley for defendant. Mr Fitzherbert for plaintiff, in opening, stated that Perreau took the mill from Collins, and it was understood that it would be sublet to Anderson. Perreau merely took the mill for Anderson. As Anderson could not pay for the new engine Ji Perreau charged more for rent than r Collins charged. It was understood that Perreau would pay wtgeg and

obtain goods and take proceeds of fibre and pay himself. Eent was not to start till Ist December. Matters went on without any agreement in writing until the agreement made on 6th January last (produced.) Mr Hurley objected to agreement it being insufficiently stamped. Mr Fitzherbert read agreement ; Bent £S a week and 103 week extra for every 10s per ton fibre realised over J6lO 10s» By clause 5 Perreau did not agree to find everything for Anderson. Mr Fitzherbert said they were suing on two accounts, the rent account and the mill account, amounting to £58 43 9d— (£42 10s and £10 14s 9d.) Anderson gave Perreau a month's notice which expired on 29th February. The counter claim except 9a 6d ia disputed. John A. Perreau deposed — That in first week in November Anderson asked him to assist him in taking mill from Collins and he would secure advance by consigning all fibre. Anderson was present at a conversation with Collins, when Collins agreed to let mill to him. Had previously assisted Anderson. It was arranged that five per cent was to be charged on the monthly debit balance. It was at his option if he was to pay wages, &c, or not. There was no alteration in these terms, and we worked under these terms to the 29th February. Mr Hurley withdrew hig objection to the agreement being put in. J. A. Perreau continued — On Anderson giving up mill on 29th February he finished the dressing of the fibre. Debited Anderson with cost and credited him with the sale. Anderson was to rely on witness's account of advances and payments made. Anderson only disputed one account, that for bread. No orders were paid without Anderson's consent. Cross-examined by Mr Hurley — Previous to mill account there was only one account between him and Anderson. The book produced does not contain original entries. Never rendered Anderson any particulars of commission and interest.. Could not say Anderson's two sons and Hatfield knew of the agreement. Made no arrangement to sell the engine purchased from Collins. Bought the engine for £200. It was COt true he had agreed to sell it to Anderson for £250. The verbal arrangement was put an end to because he was dissatisfied with it. Sold the engine in March. Paid all wages. When the P-Ns for £50 were handed to me Anderson owed me £57 7s 6d. When he got the P-N'g he was pressing Anderson to pay his interest. On 24th February distrained on mill goods and fibre for £40, 2 months rent due of mill. Withdrew bailiff and sold nothing. r Distrained again for £42 10s. The goods are in store. According to agreement, belts, machinery, &c, had to be taken over at a valuation by himself. A valuation has been made. A case of kerosene and bag of sugar obtained from Wellington have been charged to Anderson in error. By Mr Fitzherbert— The goods seized have been valued by Thomas Westwood. There was no thought of a mill account with Anderson when the P-N3 were received. Had nothing to do with working the mill, employing the hands or anything. Mr Fitzherbert said that was his oase. (To be Continued.)