RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Yesterday. (Before H. A. Stratford, Esq., R.M.) CIVIL CASES.

North Otago Times, Volume XXXV, Issue 7266, 14 October 1891, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Yesterday. (Before H. A. Stratford, Esq., R.M.) CIVIL CASES.

II. Connell v, Thos, Hartley, claim L100 on dishonored promissory notes. Mr Lee (Hislop and Creagh) appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Newton for defendant, A. G. Robinson, accountant at the National Bank, said the promissory notes were presented for payment and dishonored. Tho endorsements on tho backs were the National Bank's. Tho bills were delivered to Mr Cooke for Mr Connell. To Mr Newton : The bills had not been personally presented by witness, but he knew from tho books that they had been presented nnd dishonored. Witness delivered the bills to Mr Cooke on the day the case was first called on in tho Court, and they 'were endorsed on that dato. They had been in Mr Connoll's possession some time previously. The first endorsement of the bank was struck out on the day of dishonor. To Mr Leo : The deletion waa made after tho bills wero dishonored. The bills were handed to Connell beforo the deed of assignment was mude, Mr Newton raised n non-suit point. It would bo necessary that it should be shown that tho plaintiff waa in possession of these promissory notes or waa the legal owner of tho debt on the date when tho action was brought — the 23rd September, 1891. It could be shown from the evidence that the contrary was tho ense. It could be shown from Mr Council's evidence that he had assigned the documents to Messrs Barr and M'Douall beforo action was brought. It might bo held by tho other side that the bills wero negotiable instruments, but it would be shown that tho bills did not pab.s from tho bank till after the action was brought. The notes were made payablo to the order of Henry Connell, but Henry Connoll had re endorsed them to tho National Bank, and they were made payable to their order, and it required tho National Rank's order before these bills could pass to Henry Connoll. The Bunk's endorsement wos cancelled aftor tho action was brought, and, on cancellation, tho bills ceased to be transferable, and on tho day the action was" brought tho bills wero not transferable by delivery. Henry Connell was not the plaintiff before the Court. Tho billn had not been endorsed to Henry Connell, although he said ho had purchased tho debt from tho trustees in his estate. Mr Loo said tho whole question was whether the bills should have been reondorsed before delivery to Henry Council. He held that ib was nou necessary

that thoy should. Tho plaintiff could qualify himsolf uudor tho circumstances nftiT tho summons was takon out. IIih Worship said ho would reserve his di onion on the non-suit point. Ulna, W. Cooke, foimerly book-keeper for Homy Oonnoll, gave ovidenco ns to certain charges made for seed wheat in Juno, 1889, the prico boing 4s 3d if tho bags wuro 4 bushel bugs, and also to a small advance mado for thrcshiiig, To Mr Leo : If tho bags wero 4| bushel bugs tho prico of tho wheat would bo 3a lid per bushel. Mr Hartley could , ul ways obtain information regarding his) account, ntid would bo nllowed to inspect. his account in tho ledger. Tho account had never been disputed, but Mr Hartley had not tho money to pay it. JIo saw tho defendant sign tho document produced. To Mr Newton ; Mr Cjnnoll never told wituoss he would tako L30 lo .soltle the claim, Tho closed the plaintiffs caso. Mr Now ton, for tho dofonco, culled .lames Richmond, who said in April, 188J>, ho threshod Mr Hartley's who it. Tho wheat was velvet chaff, and \v,ih a fine sample. On the day that witness got a cheque for tho threshing from Mr C. nnoll, the latter told him he had been offered 3s lid for the wheat. The whe.it WiiR worth 4s. W. W. Dawson said in April, 188!), volvet wheat was worth from 3s lid to 4s Id. In May it was worth 3-* 101 to 3s lid, and in .luue it was down to 3s 7d. Thos. ll'iitley stud he borrowed money from Mr Connell, nud sonf him grain so thiit he might pay hitmolf out of (ho proceeds. Hu sent in 801 bags in Apiil, 1 1889. Tho whoat was worth 43, andthu instructions wero to sell at that prico. Tho week after the wheat was sent in he hud an accident If tho wheat had been sold at tho timo it would have loft a surplus of L70 to defendant. Ho was not aware that tho document produced contained a provision that plaintifl could saII nt any time ho liked. Ho never authorised plaintiff to sell tho wheat in December at 2s lOd, and pl.u'ntifl novor told him ho was going to soil. Ho complained to Mr Ooiinell about tho price the wheat was sold at, and told him he had disregarded his instructions in tho mattor. Mr Connell had offered to settle the claim for L30. To Mr Lee : His financial position wna not A good one at the time the offer was made, and was no hotter now. He saw tho market falling, but gavo no instructions to ■ell. Notwithstanding tho s,Uo of the wheat he renewed tho promissory notes to Mr Council, although he held that Mr Connell was responsible for tho Kale of tho wheat. Ho got advances from Mr Conuell tho following year. To Mr Newton : Ho had given Mr Council an order to sell his &econd crop before tho first: was sold. This closed tho case. Judgment was reserved till tho Kith instant. J.wncs C.urson v. John Kobeitson, claim L2 10d lOd. Mr L*e (Hislop and Cre,v«h) appoared for plaintiff, and Mr llaivey for defendant. Plaintiff said he had had a lease of 40 acres of land at Weston, which ho sold to dofendant on the 18th July, 1891. Between 15 16 acres wero sown in wheat, and 14| acres wero ploughed, iuuI about i\ acre was not ploughed. Ho agreed to plough tho 14 aero for defendant, and ho charged at tho rato of (is an aero. Ho also harrowed J4& acres, 4 strokes, at 9d a stroke, and charged 0.1 an aero for sowing. To Mr Harvey : Ho never offered to sow the laud for nothing, or to do tho work for nothing. For the defence Mr Harvey called George Sumpter, who said the parties wore in his ofh'se, and he understood a small quantity of Cape barley was to be put in without charge. John Robertson naid he had given C.ireon no instructions to do the woik. He understood that Carson had agreed to do the work for nothing. Nothing took place with regard to tho work other than what took place in Mr Sumpter's oflico, To Mr Leo : Ho expected Carson to put in tho gruin if ho (defendant) procured tho seed. Defendant's boy harrowed the land, and he (defendant) carried tho seed, Carson sowing it. Judgment was given for amount claimed with 9s costs. AV. Manning v. J. Churton, claim L4 b's. Mr Crawford for pUintiff. Judgment by default for amount churned, with costs.