LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9189, 19 October 1888, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

\ ' \ —T— * '- .(':■ | R.M. COURT.— Thursday. | I- [B«forek. : G.Soth Smith, Esq., K.M.] I Undefended Cases.—ln the following undefended cases judgment was given for the plaintiffs by default:—William Edgecombe v. Matthew Henry Frost, £34 63 6d, costs £3 12s; L. J. Holroyd v. 'J. R. Roberts and J. Donaldson, £2 2s, costs 8s; George Bailey v. Alderton, £3 Is Bd, coste 16s 6d; G. Hulme v.'M. Moran, £5 2s 2d, costs £1 Is ; Chas. Woolgar v. James John Laing, £6 Is lOd, costs £2 19s ; Wingate, Burns and Co. v. W. H. Spanhake, £45 8s 6d, costs £2 19s; Philip Crowe v. Sydney Taiwhariga, £3 7s; J. Raid, and Co. v. C. W. Cave and others, £20, costs £2.175; - W. Richards- v. -.'J; Salisbury £4 ; 9s, costs 16s 6d ;' E. W. '■! Whitehead ;v. C. A. Martin, « £1S X 18s !.! 2d,i; costs : £2 /8s j Francis Houlahan v. James O'Brien, £4 7s 3d, costs £1 4s 6d ; V: A; M. Hetley v. Mary Prince, £4, costs 6s; S. w Jackson J and F. R. Claude v.' D. Maxwell, £12; costs; £2 2s ; ISamuel Fairweather v. Westfield, £4 13s, costs 16s 6s; Nathan Harker v. George Akers, £4 4s 9d, costs 6s; Enoch Burden v. David McQuoid, 7s; costs Bs. ' ' ~ ~ Samuel Fairweathee v. R. Jenkinson. This was a claim for £40 Is 3d, for work '( done. Mr. Mahony appeared for plaintiff. Plaintiff was a blacksmith, and defendant a contractor, and the claim was for work done on various contracts on the Mutual Provident Insurauce building, the Sailors' Rest, and Firth's tlour • mill: The plaintiff/ proved >/ his !! claim." The / defendant admitted that the work was done, « and that plaintiff was entitled to be paid, but' he disputed his liability. Plaintiff swore that he did the work 'for Mr. Jenkinson, who was the contractor in "each case,-'and he knew no' other person .in it, and Mr. Jenkinson never told him that he was acting as agent for: any person, but he told him in regard to the work for Firth's ', mill that a man with money was backing him up. ;! Mr. / Courtney, who was the defendant's surety, was the gentleman mentioned, bat he knew nothing about Mr. ;: Courtney having -to receive ■ all moneys and i pay all accounts ; but after the work was done at Firth's mill, Mr. Jenkinson. referred him to Mr. -•; Courtney with his.account,, but Mr. Courtney ?only|- laughed • at; him, and ?told him he was only a security. !> The defendant said that Mr. .Courtney was. his security, but there was an agreement between Mr. Firth, Mr. Courtney, and himself, that Mr. Courtney was to receive all moneys and pav all accounts, defendant being then an ;uncertificated bankrupt. He half finished the"' contract when he had a dispute with the ' clerk of // works, and Mr. Courtney stopped in, took possession of the work, and *:< ' idled him, out. He at the time produced ■4 litatement, ehowing that there 5 : was £200 profit. With regard ;to ! >be'; Sailers' Res' job, the NeV/ Zealand Timber Company " to" receive ;■ all moneys. /He admitted that he owed the amount for the work don one the Insurance building. p Judgment given for the plaintiff for..;. the ; amount claimed, and costs £4 ,13s. .'.".' ;? Johnson 3 and-.Others-v. Alexander McGregor.Mr.' -Buddie appeared : for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Mahony for thedefendant The plaintiffs were trustees in .the assigned 'estate of D.H. McKenzie, who brought the claim to recover: the sum of £46 6s 3d foiaroods sold and delivered. The claim was proved! by Mr. Kingsford, accountant for the plaintiffs, who also deposed that Captain ;McGregor had, acknowledged the, correct-! ness of : the account when it was rendered in !! 1887. ; ; Mr. C Mahony ; moved 'for" a nonsuit, as the character in which plaintiff? ; sued !•'■ should ; have been stated, • otherwise the Court had no jurisdiction, the plaint being bad and the ■■; proceedings bad. Hit Worship said that was not ground for nonsuit, and the plaint was riot the foundation of jurisdiction.: It could be easily amended by adding, the words,"as. trustees," &c. Mr. Mahony contended- that it should have been shown on the summons. They wen creditors : in: the estate of McKenzie, am" had an account against the trustees, ;but they could not file a<? set-off, as it was not shown that Messrs. Johnson, ;■ Buchanan. iind Young were not suing in their private opacities. ; Mr. Buddie said the deed o> assignment was • made on. the v 27th; o August, 1887, and the goods were supplied in the 29th from the assigned estate. His Worship decided to proceed) with j the case. The witness-said-that; when Captain McGregor admitted ' the corectness of the -account ho expressed a ; wish that it should be set off against bis counter claim. For the defence it was contended that; thr goods (paint) had. been'purchased long . before August,' 1 1887,: from McKenzie, and ./was simply left in his store as Captain McGregor had no immediate requirement for them.. At that time ; Mr. McKenzie was solvent, and it was not until months ; after that the deed of assignment was madb. The estate owed Captain McGregor upwards of £200 more than; the amount which was 'now sought to be recovered. !! ; He was no party to the deed, and had never signed it. The evidence of the defendant and of David Ross, salesman, was taken, and went to prove that the goods sued for were sold/;to defendant in April, 1887.i! Mr. Mahony renewed.his application for a nonsuit on " the ■ point already named, and Mr. Buddie submitted that the plaintiffs, ; : as assignees of the'estate, sued in! their own right. - Mr/ /Mahony replied \ that in this case the , plaintifis „were merely. trustees carrying on! the business of D. H. McKeri?.i(3, and the goods-sold were not their own. His Worship said, supposing • Mr. Manouy's" contention was right, the power to amend still existed.-: ; f .-! Mr. iMahony "urged that then it would -be an entirely new ,action, and it must be treated as a plaint .not in existence. ] His Worship thought that if i an !- adjournment ! was;! granted, : the rilaint might ;be amended. • Mr. Mahony further contended that the deed of assignment was incomplete. ! : It was not signed by Captain - McGregor, and ! he was not bound by it. His Worship said the deed was put in to show the position •of the plaintiffs.' They did not sue on the deed. * After further argument His ' Worship held that Mr. Mahony. [was correct in his contention, but he held that .it could be arranged' by amendment,- and • an ; adjournment could be had to.-? enable defendant to put in a set-off, 1 but the. merits jof the . case, were in favour of -the defendant, as the evidence showed that the goods had been sold prior to the deed'of assignment, and ■swerfl. evidently taken in part satisfaction of an existing debt -due by Mr. : McKenzie to .Captain McGregor. Plaintiffs were hon'suited.withbut co's'ts. ', . •.•,'■ : Edward Jones.v. Vaile and Douglas. /This was an action to recover a sum of £7 13s !5d." ; Mr. O'Meagher appeared for!! the plaintiff, and Mr." Theo. Cooper for the defence. • The • , correctness -of the amount adhut a set-pff was put in, amounting to £17 10s. for commission on the sale of certain properties, and. defendants claimed to set off .such "portion of this amount as against the present claim. The setoff had .been the subject of an action ; heard some weeks ago before Dr.- Giles, in which Vaile and Douglas were plaintiffs and Jones defendant, but the plaintiffs, failed to establish their case, and wore nonsuited. Mr. Cooper said they now had additional evidence as to the employment of the defenS dants in the exchange of certain properties, and that the relationship of principal and agent existed throughout the transaction. Mr. Douglas (one of : the defendants), Mr. Stanley Knight (who purchased plaintiff's property at Mount Eden, for which he exchanged a property in Waiuku); arid Mr. S. Vaile (the second defendant) were examined. Counsel for. plaintiff addressed the Court, and plaintiff gave his version of the matter. Judgment- was given for. plaintiff for the amount claimed, and costs £2 Bs. - -■;-