Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.

The s.s. Moutoa.

- ■ -» Much interest was exhibited in Court on Thursday in the case of E. Howe v. John Anderson, being a claim for £110 or the return of the

steamer Moutoa. This case apart from its local interest was also one bearing upon the carious working of the law. Mr Moore appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Hawkins for the defendant. In Mr Moore's examination of the plaintiff the first question brought to view some sort of an agreement which had been made between the parties, and Mr Hawkins demanded its production quoting authority that in all agreements reduced to writing the written document must be the evidence. Mr Moore admitted that there was such a document but that its production would necessitate its being stamped and a .fine of £5 paid. It was ako only signed by John Anderson and not by all parties. The document was handed to the Magistrate who ruled it was not an agreement but only a memo of the defendant's and could be produced without its being stamped. Edward Howe disposed as to ths sale of the Moutoa to defendant for the sum of £110, payable incashV £10 and four bills due at 8, 6, 9 and 12 months for £25 each. ]£or the £10 an order was given upon ' Patter*. .-.• «on & Co. to pay " when in funds " from Anderson's flax. This was accepted by Howe and Patterson. The order was eventually returned to Howe by Patterson on Howe's application. Howe understood the arrangement with Anderson to be that in the event the order or any of the bills being dishonoured the steamer wa3 to be returned to him. The first bill was not paid. Id cross-examination Howe admitted that the steamer originally belonged to Anderson from whom he purchased it for £125. The boat had an old boiler and he had put a new one in it, at a cost of £60 or £70 and had then sold it to Anderson. W. R. Howe and W. H. Howe corroborated the evidence of the plaintiff, and this concluded the case for the plaintiff. Mr Hawkips said the defence was that the order for the £10 en Patterson & Go. was honoured by them though not paid, and that the agreement, though a lease, was a sale on credit. The only remedy the plaintiff had was to sue on the bills as they became due. The B.M. thought it was a hiring and not a purchase, the words being in Anderson's own writing. John Anderson was called and agreed as to the terms of payment, but asserted that Patterson & Go. had agreed to pay when in funds from Anderson and Howe had accepted the order on these terms. The steamer needed new engines and be had told Howe bo end had proposed that he would put these in if Howe would place the. doe bill at the back of the longest "dated bill,, and Howe had agreed to this, though he had takon this action. Had he not done so he would not have allowed the bill to be dishonoured. ; He had paid for the engine. J. W. Andersoa corroborated his father's evidence. The S.M. thought that sections 40 and 41 of " The Sales of Goods Act 1895 " gave plaintiff right to take possession, but Mr Hawkins submitted that without an express stipulation being set out the seller had not the right of possession. The plaintiff bad taken the defend*, ant's bills and could sue upon, them,* and obtain execution. The order given by defendant on Patterson & Co. which the plaintiff accepted expressly set forth that it was in part payment of purchase money for the steamer, and to which plaintiff had raised no objection. Counsel also quoted oases bearing out his view. Mr Moore said that a verbal bailment was as good as a written one when made between original parties. If there had been a Bill of Sale seizure could have been made without coming to the Court, but the plaintiff asked that the case should be treated as one of detinue, and - judgment given for the amouni ' claimed or for .the return of the boat. The S.M. said, in the course of a very clear rasume of the case that he thought the right of recovery of the boat under the agreement had been waived by the plaintiff having agreed '• to put the first bill back. His only course would be for plaintiff to wait until the end, of twelve months when the last bill became due before he could get possession of the steamer. The plaintiff would be nonsuited.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/MH18970213.2.12

Bibliographic details

The s.s. Moutoa., Manawatu Herald, 13 February 1897

Word Count
768

The s.s. Moutoa. Manawatu Herald, 13 February 1897

Working