DISTRICT COURT.

Colonist, Volume III, Issue 295, 17 August 1860, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

[Before his Honor the District Judge.] Wednesday, August 15, On Wednesday last, at 10 o'clock, the Court was again rather thinly attended—seemingly very little interest being taken in the causes but one; nearly all the others being undefended, and although undisputed by the parties themselves, yet they had to pass the ordeal of proof in court, occupying as much time as usual. . Jenkins v. Levien.—This case was tried by a jury of four, consisting of Messrs. Baker, Bayly, Banks, and Barrett. Mr. Adams, for the plaintiff, called his.client; Mr. Kingdon did the same with his. Each told his own side of the story, from which it appears in short the plaintiff (from Motueka) had sold oats to one Wright^ for the defendant, to be delivered at the store of the defendant, and they were so delivered, value £32; thus the defendant became the.principal in the transaction, although he repudiated his having employed Wright (expressly), as his agent to buy the oats on his credit, but that he was to do so on his own responsibility, and the oats were then (according to arrangement) to be placed to Wright's credit with the defendant, who was owing him money. The authorities on the law produced by Mr. Adams were decidedly in favor of the plaintiff—" That the general rule of law is the seller shall have his remedy against the principal, rather than against any other person; where goods are bought by a party, who even does not at the time disclose that he is acting as agent;,the seller (even although he had debited that party in his books) may, upon discovering the principal, resort to him for payment." And, notwithstanding the learned Judge took a different view of it, and summed up in favor of the defendant, the jury, after shortly retiring, returned a verdict in favor of the,plaintiff. Order for J32 17s. 6d., and £8 18s. costs.Harley and Poynter v. Parker.—This was an ejectment to recover possession of the Motueka Hotel. The suit was defended for want of notice to quit; the plaintiffs having withdrawn, and struck out the cause from the list. Mr. Stamper applied for the court Jo adjudicate the costs up to the time of the withdrawal, according to the rules. ; The court referred to the act, and thought this was not an " action in any court," and said that it only has power as to co3ts in cases of judgment obtained.

Mr: Stamper said the summons itself was entitled in the court, but he admitted the case was not before the court; "suppose any cause is settled before judgment then there is no costs.'1 The court seemed to think the same, there must be a judgment to entitle a solicitor to costs ; and suggested a summons to show cause why such a certain sum should not be allowed as the costs, to give the court liberty to enter upon the costs. Mr. Stamper: But if tho court only has authority as to costs on a judgment, where is the authority by merely taking out a summons ? The rules say costs shall be paid on a withdrawal; and yet the act says they shall—but on a judgment.