LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVIII, Issue 5996, 4 February 1881, Page 6

LAW AND POLICE.

BANKRUPTCY. Re Collixgwood Hope Morris.—A meeting of creditors was held yesterday in this estate. The debtor was described as a clerk, formerly of H.M. Customs. Mr. Thomas Macffarlane was appointed trustee. RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.— Thursday. [Before J. E. Jtfacdonald, Esq., R.M.] The ordinary weekly sitting to-hear and determine small debt claims was held this morning, and the following business disposed of :— UNDEFENDED CASES Judgment for Plaintiffs. —Thomas Hancock v. Henry Thompson, £7 10s; James Williamsson v. John Maxwell, £25 ; Holland and Fortzer v. Richard Cotter, £S 3s lid ; Edwin Bird v., Thomas Burleigh, 9s Gd ; Robert Kelly v. Daniel Munro, £1 10s ; "W. Barker v. W. Jamieson, £5 7s; Hunter and Nolan v. A. Carter, £13 6s 7d ; the same v. George May, £6 13s 6d; Bindon and Co. v.W. Cook, £4 ; Rothes L. Meek v. W. Jamieson, £4 3s 10d. Judgment Summons. — W. Hogan v. Daniel Kenny, £2 12s. The defendant was ordered to pay 10s a week, or 14 days' imprisonment. DEFENDED CASES. H. Kelly v. Jobson. —Claim, £10 9s 9d. Mr. Samuel Hesketh for plaintiff; Mr. Theo. Cooper for defendant. This was an action to recover for breach of covenant. The parties were formerly in partnership as carriage proprietors. . The partnership was dissolved, Jobson to pay the partnership debts, the deed containing a clause by which the plaintiff was, to be indemnified from liability on account of the partnership. But a Mr. Palmer LennariLsued Kelly for a debt due, which Kelly was obliged to pay, under a judgment of the Court. This action was now brought to recover the amount from Jobson. The defence was that the liabilities of the partnership, according to the plaintiffs representation, did not exceed £10 ; that a certain debt was concealed by plaintiff, and consequently that the deed was obtained by wilful and fraudulent representations. The defendant denied the allegation of fraudulent misrepresentation, or concealment of a debt. A legal question raised was whether, in a matter of account under the circumstances, arising out of a partnership, the Court had jurisdiction. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £10 9s 9d. Sandell v. Cundall.—Claim, £4 19s. Mr. Theo. Cooper for plaintiff; Mr. W. E. Burton for defendant. Cundall V. Sandell.—Claim, £12 3s. This was a cross-action. The first action was brought at a previous sitting of the Court, and the defendant, Cundall, claimed to have a set-off, but he had not time to make out the • particulars. Sandell is a butcher and Cundall is a farmer and contractor. The latter engaged to do certain " walling" and labouring work for the former, who supplied meat, which was fetched by members of Cundall's family. The items in difference were wholly matters of account dates, accounts, &c. His Worship cave judgment for the plaintiff in the first case for £1 7s 6d. The second ease was struck OUt. .■.,:'■' Somerfield v. Stainf.s.—Claim, £12 9s ?t W> E - Burtoll for the ; plaintiff, •Mr.-Tole.for the defendant. The action was brought to recover the above amount for goods supplied to the defendant's wife who is living apart from her husband.

On the application of defendant's counsel, the witnesses were ordered out of Court, but to remain within hearing. Mr. Tole, in reply to questions put by the Bench, said the defence was that Airs. Staines had deserted her husband; that defendant never ordered the goods, and never had them. After an argument as to the burthen of proof, his Worship decided that it was clearly on the plaintiff. Mr. Tole also brought undef the notice of the Bench that the invoice of the ■ goods and the bill sent to defendant was in the name of Somerfield arid Leek. Joseph William Napier, accountant to the plaintiffs, produced the power of attorney to Somerfield to ebllect the partnership debts. Mr. Burton contended that the power of attorney was in the nature of an assignment. Mr. Tole made a formal objection of non-joinder. The paper put in was not an assigment of the chose in action. There was no assignment of the debt of the firm to Mr. Somerfield. His Worship': This is simply a power of attorney from Leek to Somerfield to collect debts due to Leek. If Mr. Tole. presses, his ..objection, I must rule in his favour. But I would suggest whether the defendant should be content with a barren victory, for he is almost certain to be summoned again, and the case will have to be brought on again. Mr. Burton: I think Mr. Tole might, in the interest of his client, allow us to amend. I never saw that document, or knew of its existence, until this morning. Mr. Tole : I am bound to avail myself of every point on behalf of my client. If they wish to have the matter put off to another day they must pay the costs—that is all. Mr. Burton : Of course we cannot allow the matter to drop. His Worship : I expected to hear that. It seems to me clear that the action must fall through' on the ground of non-joinder. Somerfield and Leek supplied the goods. Somerfield sues and puts iu this "power of attorney," which does not assign anything to Somerfield, but only enables him to act as Leek's attorney. Mr. Burton : In these circumstances I suppose we must accept a non-suit, but we can hardly be sontent to forego our claim. The Clerk of the Court : The costs are £1 14s. His Worship : I should strongly recommend Mr. Burton, the counsel for the plaintiff, to read receut reported cases upon this question of law, as to the liability of a husband for his wife's debts. It would be well if he considered thoroughly the unreported cases as well. There have been several late decisions on the subject. The plaintiff was non-suited with costs. Adjourned Cases.—John Jervis v. Benjamin Thompson, Bright Smile Gold-mining Company v. H. Dunnett, John Smyth v. Henry Handley, Holland and Butler v. T. Willis, Somerfield and Leek v. John Kier, Dunningham and King v. John Wylie, The Same v. Samuel Glover, The Same v. Gustav Davis, F. G. Ewington v. C. Jones, G. Sibbin v. Maurice Kelly (jun.), Somerfield aud Leek v. J. Ramsey, James Page v. Joseph Draper, and Goddard v. Dilworth.