SUPREME COURT.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 3344, 20 December 1883, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

TIMARU—YESTERDAY. (Before the Judge and a jury of four, consisting of Messrs J. Ogilvie foreman, M. H. Howe.R. R. Munro, and J. Vernon.) CIVIL CASES. Allan and Stumbles v. W. Tosswill, claim £IBO ; counter claim, £73 7s sd. Mr Stout, instructed by Messrs Whit© and Smithson, for plaintiffs ; Mr Joynt for defendant. This was a case in which plaintiffs alleged that defendant had collected certain moneys on their account and held a certain promissory note belong* ing to them. Defendant on his part alleged that he had a counter claim upon plaintiffs for costs out of pocket, for legal charges, and other matters. The following evidence was heard on account of the plaintiffs:— Robert Allan, of the firm of Allan and Stumbles, plaintiffs, said his firm had had litigation with Stonyer, and with Stonyer and Mason, Mr Tosswill acting as his firm’s solicitor. There were two actions and the plaintiffs failed in both. Mr Tosswill had asked to be allowed to act in the cases, promising to charge nothing except costs out of pocket, if he did not succeed. One case was heard in the District Court, and witness saw Mr Tosswill afterwards and remarked that it was very awkward losing the case. Mr Tosswill replied that it was. Witness then urged that Mr Jameson should be retained for the next case, but Mr Tosswill would consent only provided Mr Jameson was retained as hie junior. Witness then saw Mr Jameson about the case, but he refused to have anything to do with it. The second case came on and was lost too. Mr Tosswill recommended an appeal to tho Supreme Court. Mr Tosswill’s journeys to Christchurch on this business, charged for by him, were not authorised by plaintiff. On one occasion witness spoke to Mr Tosswill about these journeys, but the latter said he was there on his own business, and just looked into plaintiff’s case while he was there. With regard to a bill for £3OO given by plaintiffs to defendant, it was given as an advance on the understanding that he should render his account for costs and meet the bill, they (plaintiffs) paying his costs. The bill was dishonored, and certain costs were imposed on plaintiffs by Mr Ormsby (the Bank’s solicitor) and subsequently recovered by an execution which the latter put into plaintiff’s office. In cross-examination by Mr Joynt, witness said at the time of Stonyer and Mason’s suit against plaintiffs, plaintiffs were actually indebted to that firm, but not so much as the latter alleged. Witness could not say precisely what plaintiffs’ clerk, Ralph, said to defendant about the £3OO bill.

George Stumbles, the other plaintiff, corroborated his partner’s evidence as to the Stonyer and Mason case. Defendant had, in the first instance, advised plaintiffs that Stonyer could not win the case against them. The warrant to defend the case was signed by Mr Wildie, plaintiff’s former partner. Josiah Ralph, clerk to plaintiffs, specified certain accounts given by plaintiffs to defendant for collection, and which had been duly collected, and gave evidence as to the details of the account between the parties. John Grant, farmer, Pleasant Point, said he owed the firm of Wildie, Allan and Stumbles £55, and settled with Mr Tosswill.

[The Court here adjourned till 10 o’clock to-day.]

THIS DAY. . The case Allan and Stumbles v. W. Tosswill was resumed this morning. Mr Stont called J. C. McKerrow who gave evidence of a similar kind to that of the proceeding witness. This was ths case for the plaintiffs. For the defence Mr Tosswill the defendant was examined by Mr Joynt as to the transactions between himself and the plaintiffs. Mr Stout subjected the witness to a searching and prolonged cross-examina-tion, with a view of showing that he had made excessive charges, and bad otherwise unduly swelled his account against the plaintiffs.

On the conclusion of the defendant’s case,and after the luncheon adjournment, Mr Stout informed His Honor that after consultation with defendant’s counsel (Mr Joynt) they bad decided to withdraw the case, and the defendant would forego his counter claim. Each party had to pay their own costs. His Honor said that being the case, there was no necessity to let the evidence go to the jury. The jury were therefore discharged.