Resident Magistrate's Court.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XVI, Issue 5094, 2 October 1891, Page 2

Resident Magistrate's Court.

THIS DAY. (Before H. A. Stratford, Esq., K.M.) CIVIL CASE. Connell v. Hartley, claim JjIOO, ,|j s lonored promissory notes and'interest

same. The evidence of the plaintill in this can was taken this morning prior to his | w . ing the district. Mr Lee (Ilislop and Creagli) apjic.irii] for plaintiff and Mr Newton fur ' ( ] t f C!l . dant. Henry Council, commission ,„ cilt stated the endorsements on the liackh i'| the promissory notes were his. The nutes had not been paid. The second ciulorsement was the National Bank's endorse, ment. Cross examined by Mr Newton: {Jinco January and February, 1890, lie had nwde an assignment of his estate. Mr Lee objected that evidence re s document could not be taken vritlmut proof of assignment being made. His Worship upheld the objection, Witness continuing : Two of the Ml s came into his possession many montlistj) and the other three months ago, Hehil bought the book debts ill his own estate from Messrs Barrand M'Douall about six months ago, and made the filial ibjjjmi on the 20th of October. Tin- dclfe included the amount promissory note in question. He ilifoj know when the bank's made upon the document. The note: I L2O was against a cash advance, iimhß others were renewals. Document duced was a statement of accounts 1«1 tween himself and defendant re the bills. 1 He could not swear to the items of the' accounts, as ho did not keep his own books. Ll2 (is were advance*/ to <kfendant in April, 1889, but he. did not know who paid it to him. In December, 1889, credit was given for LM) !)s Id fur wheat sold to the Tiniarn Milling Company. It was a portion of a lot, of ulmit sent in by defendant to pay advances made to lnm. Hartley got an advance on the strength of the wheat-. There was i an agreement in writing. [Produced,] The wheat was sent in in April, 1889, There were about 800 bushels. The market price of velvet wheat at that lime was about .'.is 9d or Us lOd pel' liuslni Between the time of tho wheat being sent in and its disposal wheaHell, It was never at 4s per bushel during April and December, 1889. He ; had on one occasion told Hartley he thought he could got 3s lOcl or 3s lid for tho wheat, It was ultimately sold at 2s lOd. Hartley had authorised him to sell at 3s 11J, but in the interval of Hartley's makingi? his mind the market went back, mid It could not get 3s lid. Ho always constiM bis clients before selling, even if ho fc authority to sell. The market steadily down, and they held for jk It was sold in December undet*' Hartley's instructions. lie only soldi# bags, because the Timaru Milling te pany rejected 39 bags as not up to samj'A The balance was shipped Homonyw Lutterworth in January. He sciiU'J account until May. Defendant. knc«'W wheat had been sent by the Liilterivuta, because lie came in and got an aunt® against his next year's crop. lleW® recollection of Mrs Hartley coming in 'J see him about the wheat. The charge);' 6s was advance for threshing. Ihreslifflj cost about 3d per bushel. To Mr Lec : Mr Hartley told hint originally to hold the wheat for 4s, una. ntW asked him why lie had not sold. )' c " present when the L2O advance against« second year's crop was arranged. On''' date (February 3rd) defendant renew bill of L3O, balance of his account to® • When lie renewed the bill, Hartley not object to tho prico tho client » realised. . T The Court then adjourned until t" day next, at 11 a.m.