Resident Magistrate's Court

Southland Times, Issue 9542, 11 June 1887, Page 3

Resident Magistrate's Court

Friday, 10th June.

(Before H. McCullocb, Esq., R.M.)

UNDEFENDED CASES,

W. Robertson v. Wra. Cook. — Claim, L 3 19s 3d for goods supplied. Judgment by default ; costs, 6s.

DEFENDED CASES,

Bank of Australasia v. J. Kingsland am Co. —Mr Finn tor plaintiffs and Mr Wad for defendauta. — Claim, L 93 5a 3d for n6 and occupation of the premises in Dei street, now occupied by defendants, — h E. S. Carr, manager for plaintiffs ii Invercargilljiproduccd two memoranda o mortgages in proof of title to the pre inises in question. The Deputy Officia Assignee was in possession for som time after the bankruptcy of th< defendants, and was then liable fo the rent. No price had been fixed as i rental during the term of tenancy claimec for. On the 15th January, 1887, the de fendants bai paid LIOO on account of rent and in a letter written previous to tha expressed their desire to lease the premise! with a purchasing clause. In a etatemenl of valuation given by defendants to witness they valued the premises at L4OOO The lowest rental which the plaintiffs would take for the premises was L 4 10s per week. — Evidence for the plaintiffs wai also given by It. H. Rnttray, R. Macleod A. L. Wileon, and J. E. Hannab. — Mi Wade contended that no agreement haH been made between the parties to establish the relation of landlord and tenant. He also held that the Court had no jurisdiction in this case, as the original amount was ovqt LIOO, and certain payments had bees credited which were in the nature of a set off. — His Worship Baid the defendants' letters to plaintiffs, which had been produced showed that there was a consciousness on the part of the defendants that there was a tenancy existing. — Mr Finn quoted authorites on the question of landlord and tenant. The claim now made was for an account stated and settled ; the credits having been made at the request of the defendants. — For the defence, John Kingsland gave evidence. He never received any notice from the Official Assignee to account to the plaintiffs for the rent. He gave not authority to them to receive and place to his credit any moneye. He bad a claim of L 863 9d on the estate of Templetoa and Co, and the Assignee's hooka showed, that the bask had received the money. They had no right to it, and he still held the Official Assignee responsible for it.— His Worship said that the original claim having been LlO2 10s, he did not think the Court had jurisdiction. It would therefore be dismissed ; costs, L 4 14 6d. Walter Springford v. James Bridge. — Mr Macalister for plaintiff, and Mr Finn for defendant. — Claim of Ll7, being moaoy's paid on certain orders of one John McEachren for and on account ot the defendant. — It appeared that defendant hold a lien over &[< Euchren'a crop and bad agreed with him to pay the workmen's wages on presentation of orders signed by McEachren. To accommodate the men who received the orders he told plaintiff to paj 7 them and he would settle with him afterwards. Plaintiff had applied for payment on different occasions and defendant had promised to pay until the last interview he Lad with him when he eaid he had lost enough over the affair and refused to pay anything. — Evidence was given by A. 11. Lawrence, Jno. McEschren, and. David Wamock for tue plaintiff, who J stated that he would have taken action against McEachren had not defendant promised he woufd pay him if be did not do so. — Mr Finn contended that there was no consideration or mutuality of contract between the plaintiff and defendant, and also that it waa a guarantee and should Jhave been in writing. — Mr Macalister, in reply, said it was an indemnity to plaintiff and did not require to be in | writing 1 , and fnrtber that there was forbearance on plaintiff's part at defendant's request, in not enforcing his claim on the orders against McEichrerj, which he could have done. That, according to authorities, was a consideration to support a promise, Mr Micaiiiter offered to give authorities, but his Worship ruled that farther argument was unnecessary.— Judgment would be for plaintiff, with costs, L 4 10s.