The Courts.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 385, 28 June 1879, Page 20

The Courts.

LICENSING COURT. Tuesday, June 24. (Before the Commissioners, Messrs. T. A. Mansford, R.M. (chairman), Holdsvvorth, Kebbell, and Moore.) GROSVENOR HOTEL. John Bertie, proprietor of the Grosvenor Hotel, at the top of Tarauaki-street, applied again for his license. The Inspector of Police stated that the house was not yet completely furnished, but very nearly so. The furniture was all of the very best description. Mr. March ant, architect, said that the house was completed, and was a most substantial structure. The license was granted. TWELVE O’CLOCK LICENSES. Mr. Fitz Gerald applied on behalf of the proprietors of the Caledonian aud Albion Hotels, that their licenses might be extended to 12 o’clock instead of 10 o’clock, as at present. Granted. SPECIAL LICENSES. Mr. Fitz Gerald asked the Bench whether they were prepared to give an opinion regarding the granting of a bottle license to Mr. Marks, and also to A. Fredericks, for the sale of Adelaide wines. Mr. Mansford said that the views of the commissioners on the Bench did not agree, and he thought it would not be right to express their individual opinion, as they could not irnder the present law grant the licenses. They thought under the circumstances it would be better to let the matter rest, and not express any opinion regarding it. DISTRICT COURT. Friday, June 20. (Before his Honor Judge Mansford.) MADDEN V. W. T. L. TRAVERS. His Honor read the following judgment in this case :—ln this case the defendant admits that he received instructions from the plaintiff to get back or return the two promissory notes mentioned in the plaintiff's particulars of demand, and that he was furnished with sufficient means for that purpose. The defendant further admits he did not get possession of the promissory notes, and sets up by way of defence that he appropriated the money in another way for the benefit of plaintiff, and with his sanction and approval. That the money was not appropriated in the manner mentioned by the defendant, is nut for one moment doubted, and the only question for me to decide is whether the alleged appropriation was made with the sanction aud approval of the plaintiff. But for the evidence of Mr. Bishop, who was called for the defence, I confess I should have had considerable difficulty in arriving at anything approaching a satisfactory conclusion. There is nothing to show when the change of appropriation was made. It is, however, tolerably clear that the same day as the money was given by the plaintiff to take up the promissory notes referred to, the cheque for the amount was handed over to other parties and for other purposes than those originally intended, so that the action of the defendant would prove beyond doubt that the change of appropriation took place at that time ; aud as the cheque is dated the 14th of October, it may be presumed to have occurred on or about that day. That this was done with the sane-

tion or approval of the plaintiff is utterly irreconcilable with the evidence of himself, and that of the witness McCarthy. The plaintiff and McCarthy both state that in several interviews which took place long after the 14th day of October, one even as late as the end of November, the defendant said he would see the bills all right, that he would look after plaintiff's interest, and he need not bother himself about them, and that if the bank sued hitn he would still see him all right, and that he should not lose by it. In the face of this unmisfcakeable testimony it is impossible for me to conclude that the change of appropriation was made with the sanction of the plaintiff. However much I may regret the conclusion at which I have arrived—for I do regret it, believing that defendant was acting in the interest of his client —yet inasmuch as the money was given him for a specific purpose, he was bound to apply it in that way and no other. I give judgment for plaintiff for £l2O 10b. lOd. and eo-*ts. BEERE V. T. K. MACDONALD AND CO. Claim £l7O, for services rendered as a surveyor. Mr. .Hell appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Ollivier for the defendant. Plaintiff in his evidence stated that he had been a surveyor and engineer for sixteen or seventeen years, practising principally in the North and Middle Islands of New Zealand. I-le remembered having a conversation with the defendant about, preparing certain plans, and doing other work. Since being employed by the defendant witness had done -all his (defendant’s) work up to the end of January of the present year. He remembered writing a letter to the defendant, bub could not say what the first work done was. He charged for drawing a sketch plan for Mr. Nathan, which was included in the present claim. He had a conversation with the defendant re surveying certain sections at Carterton belonging to Mr. Nathan. Witness was employed two days doing the work. He never saw Mr. Nathan in the matter. He charged the defendant according to the size of the sections. The defendant in his evidence said that the contract entered into between him and the plaintiff was that the same rate was to be paid for all sections, no matter what their size was; also that the plaintiff had agreed to survey all lands as a job lot at so much. Mr. Bayliss was called to prove the price he was to pay the defendant for getting certain lands cut up. Mr. Ollivier called defendant, who denied the greater part of the items. G. V. Briscoe, a surveyor, was called to prove plaintiff had made certain overcharges. Witness also said that plaintiff had supplied to the Land Transfer Office ft plan of a section which did not agree with the lithographic plan which was distributed for sale. E. Beeves said he had had certain land cut up, and had paid Beere and not Macdonald. Both counsel addressed the jury, and his Honor summed up ; after which the jury retired for one hour, and gave judgment for plaintiff for £l4l lls. 3d.

SUPREME COURT.—IN BANCO. SITTINGS. Wednesday, June 25. (Before their Honors the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Richmond.) TRAVERS AND DUNCAN V. JOSEPH HADFIELD. Their Honors gave judgment in the above case, which was an action brought by the executors of James Gilligan to enforce the completion of a contract made between the deceased when alive, and Joseph Hadfield, for the sale of Gilligan’s property, for £SOOO, subject to a mortgage ot £BOOO. The property consisted of 281 acres, known as Abbotsford Station, and several other sections in the township of Wardell, and 2500 sheep and other stock. The Court decided that the agreement ought to be specifically performed and carried into execution, in case a good title could be made to the property. FIRTH V. BROWNLEE. Mr. Travers applied for a rule nisi for a new trial on the grounds of misdirection. The action was tried at the session held at Blenheim on the 12bh inst. The case was ordered to stand over pending the receipt of the papers in the action from the Registrar at Blenheim. BUCKERIDGE V. WARDELL. This was a motion for a decree on the verdict and for costs. Mr. Ollivier and Mr. Fitzherbert for plaintiff ; Mr. Bell for defendant. Mr. Bell moved a cross motion that the suit should be dismissed, or, in alternative, that the plaintiff should pay defendant’s costs on certain of the issues. An order was made that plaintiff should have the costs of the suit, and the cross-motion was dismissed. Mr. Bell applied for leave to appeal, but the application was not granted. HENDERSON (TRUSTEE OF) V. EVANS. Mr. Hutchison for plaintiff ; Mr. Ollivier for defendant. This was a case from Wanganui, the question being as to the liability of trustee to pay costs. After hearing the arguments of counsel, their Honors reserved judgment. The Court then adjourned.