CKICKET.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10239, 22 December 1894, Page 6

CKICKET.

CHRIST'S COLLEGE V. OTAGO HIGH

SCHOOL.

The annual cricket match between teams representing Christ's College and the Otago

Kigti School was concluded oa the Carisbrouk

irouud yesterday in glorious weather. Ab a

result of the previous daj's play the High

School boya were left •wit!:; 132 runs to get in order to win—a tusk which was generally thought to be beyond their abilities. AfKsr the fall of ttie first widtet at 15, however, a fins stand was made by Williams Mid J. B, Mao- j donald which made the probability of success apparent, these twn carrying the score to 65. At that total both batsmen were dismissed, ur.d as the fourth wicket fell without any | addition to the score, the chances wor«, if any- j thing, again in favour of the visitors, but j Shand then joio'id W. M»cd_ODald in a profitable pArtuerslup, which caused frequent changes of bowling. Mhcdonald played car«fally, while j Sband hit our cleanly, his driving beinu ] especially good, and tfco Bcore advauced to 119 before the former was bowled. The next two i

wickets feil without any addition to tho score,

and a collapse wa? apprehended, hue Fisher,

wlio filled tee breach, kept his wicket up, and

eventually rosda the winmng stroke with a hi' to the leg boundary. The School thus secured a meritorious victory by three wickets smd J runs. The following are the scores mad( yesterday:—

High .School. —Second Innings. Moore, c Grant, b OUiviar William?, b Grant J. B. Macdor.ald, b Bluiiden Hotors h Grant ■\V. Jlacdonald, b Blunden Rhand, not out Johnstone, b Blnnden Warkenzie, c and I) Bluiiden ... Fisher, not out Extras

not v\\A. There in evidsneo that the .£bO that Mr linker's clipiiuh represented was paid to the credit of tho defendant company. Iv August last the plaintiff sued Mr Maxwell for iWaamouay lent to him persoii.-illy. nnd it h admitted tout tins loan ia rev.re»ente<l by the chequo now sue-1 upon. HiintiiF obtained judgment on Mr Maxwells confession, who has since paid £35 on account, and whioh has been credited asainst the cheque sued upon. The question is whether an action against the company will now lie tor the balance. Mr Milne claims that, on the authority of Nathan v. Clarkson (7, N.Z.L. Hup., «{B) and ; other cases plaintiff cannot now recover: tiiat Mr i'inker haviujj ft ohoice of debtors elected to depend upon Mr Maxwoll, and obtaineil judgment RKiunat him, and havinp: so elected cannot now recover from the company. Againtt tais Mr him contends that the causes of action are not identical, the one beins for money lent, the other upon a dishonoured cheque. 1 don't think that_ mesh j the question, for both cinse» of action ongtnato i directly from the same consideration—the loan of the' money. In Onniberfut and Co. v. Chapman (L. R., XIX Q, B. 2i») it was held that an unsatisllad .iiulgment asainat, one joint contractor ! on a bill ot exchange sivau by him alone, although I for a joint debt, was a bar against an action i tiaainst the other joint contractor on the signed contract. If the facts wave as suggested by Mr Sim that Mr Kinker had refused to lend money to the company, but lent it to Mr .n.axweH and accepted the company's cheque as collateral security, assuming Mr Maxwell had authority to make use of the comnaay'a cheque in that wav to raise money for the company, then I think the plaintiff could have recovered the balance unpaid by Mr Maxwell, the causes of action not being theu Mcut.icat, but Mr linkers evidence is clsar that the loan was to tue company, through its an«!ii Mr Maxwell, the managing diiector, ami the cheque was not Riven only as collateral security. Why Air Maxwell should have been sued or why he confessed judsment I don't know. I can only assume it was some presumed deftcfc in his authority to bind tha company which I have not discovered from the evidence here, but, Mr Finker elected to sue him and obtained judgment, and therefore cannot now get judgment against the cuinpany. Judgment for defendant."