Resident Magistrate's Court.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XVII, Issue 5306, 21 June 1892, Page 3

Resident Magistrate's Court.

THIS DAY. (Before H. A. Stratford, Esq., R.M.) CIVIL CASES. W. Bee v. H. M'Eidowney Mr Lee (Hislop and Creagh) for the plaintiff. The amount having been paid into Court with costs, Mr Lee applied for solicitor's fee (10s (id). Judgment for 10s 6d. .James Cooney v. David Garvie, claim L 3, goods supplied. Judgment by default for amount claimed, with Court costs Cs. J. M. Brown v. Henry Davis. Mr Harvey for plaintiff. Claim, L3osßd on a dishonored cheque. Judgment by default for amount claimed, with Court costs (ss. T. C. Dennison v. M. White and J. "Roderers. Mr Lee (for Mr Newton) for plaintiff, and Mr Harvey for defendant. Claim L2O. Mr Harvey admitted the debt, but claimed a set-off Ll6 7s 6d. He confessed for the balance. The set-off was not admitted. Mr Harvey explained that the set-off was for work done, and the defence, he believed, would be that the work was done for the Mountain Hut Water-race Company, and not for Mr Deunison. A case Mitchell v. Dennison had already been before the Court, in which a similar defence had been raised, and, if necessary, he would apply for the evidence in that case to be put in. He called Michael White, miner, Livingstone, who stated that he had been engaged by Mr Dennison in April, 1891, to work at a race. He worked 25 days at ordinary waaes (8s a day). He also had four days showing the contractors over the ground, for which he charged 15s a day for himself and horse. There was a further amount for wages paid to Gallagher, who had been empiged to work at the race. He had Mr Dennison's authority to engage whatever labor was necessary. Mr Mitchell was with him all the time the woik was being done. He was engaged by Mr Dennison at his office, and he went up with Mr Mitchell. To Mr Lee : He and Rodgers had certain rights at Maerewhenua which they disposed of for a number of shares in the Company. It was to his interest to get the Company floated. He remembered being at a meeting when Mr Dennison was instructed to call for tenders for the first 4i miles of the race, He had an interview with Mr Dennison immediately afterwards and was engaged to do the work. He told Mr Dennison it was unnecessary to send a surveyor to do the work for which he (witness) was suing. He did not recollect whether anything definite was said about payment, but he understood that Mr Dennison was to pay him. The sale of his rights had already been effected. He never had any scrip because the Company was never floated. He did not recollect, in giving _ evidence in the case Mitchell v. Dennison, whether he said that he expected to be paid by the Company. Mr Dennison did not engage Rodgers, but only him (witness). The accounts put in atrainst the Mountain Hut Water-race Company were in his handwriting, and represented the money claimed for against Dennison. To Mr Harvey : He had applied to Mr Dennison for payment, and had been referred to the Company. The Company stated that the provisional directors were indebted in the amount, but that Mr Dennison was appointed to collect the moneys and pay due debts. This closed the case for the set-off. Mr Lee submitted that there was no case to answer. Even if the statements given in evidence were taken as correct, the set-off could only be claimed by White, and not by White and Rodgers, and one party in a defence could not put in a claim for setoff. Mr Harvey submitted that White had sworn in evidence that the work was done on account of a partnership, air Lee called T. C. Dennison, who stated that White and Rodgers had intended to transfer certain rights at Maerewhenua to the Mountain Hut "Water-race Company. He acted as secretary for the provisional directorate, and was instructed to call tenders for certain work. In pursuance of this resolution he had an interview with Mr White, who said that he (White) and another man could take the necessary levels perfectly well, and it was no use putting the Company to that expense. He did not instruct White to go. It was to White and Rodgers' benefit to get the work done, as it was preliminary to tlie successful floating of the Company, and the consequent sale of White's privileges. White had never claimed for the money personally until the set-off. He recollected White stating in the course of the case Mitchell v. Deunison that he (White) expected to be paid by the Company. To Mr Harvey: He was appointed legal roauager of the Company. He remembered ~ the case of Mitchell against himself. He repudiated liabilities in that case, expecting Mitchell would be paid by White. He did not remember saying "It is very hard luck that WTiite should not be paid." He got nothing from the Company. He did not recover from the Company the damages paid to Mitchell. This closed the case. His Worship stated that he could not see that Mr Dennison had ever accepted or incurred personal liability. The se -off would be disallowed. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed ! -with costs Li 4s.