THE BRANDON, SHAW AND BRANDON SCANDAL.

Taranaki Herald, Volume XXXV, Issue 6984, 6 February 1886, Page 2

THE BRANDON, SHAW AND BRANDON SCANDAL.

In the Resident Magistrate's Court at Wellington on Friday, a civil suit, T. G. Macarthy v. J. Martin, M.L.C., was heard. In this caae, the plaintiff ullegnd that he had advanced at different times sums of money amounting to £IGS, to Mr. Edward Shaw, upon an understanding that the defendant was to repay him one half of such money lent. It appeared that Mr. Slmv, being in want of money, assigned to Messrs. Martin and Macarthy, one-third sliuro in the profits o£ the firm of Brandon, Shaw and Brandon, of which he was at one time a member. In return for this assignment, Mr. Shaw was to have money advanced to him by Mr. Macarthy, one-half «f which was to be repaid by Mr. Martin. Travers was for the plaintiff, and Mr ' Guiiy for the defence. The plaintiff deposed that in October, 1883, Mr. Shaw applied to him aad Mr. Martin for pecuniary assistance; they decided that, as Mr, Sh»w already owed them £1400, they would ask some security for further loans. They obtained thy deed produced, and subsequently advances were, made by witness to the extent £165. None of those advances were made without consulting Mr. Martin, and it was by Mr. Martuin's direction that the advances were evidently stopped. Cross-examined : Mr. Martin went home, and the matter was left in witness' hands. Mr. Shaw had previously assigned his Bbaro in the profits of the firm, over £600 a year; and when Mr. Shaw was about to leave the firm, he, with witness aaa Mr. Martin, took legal proceedings to compel theotlier members to furnish a statement of account. The statement when made ahowed tliat Mr. Shaw was entitled on account of book debts to receive about £800. Messrs Brandon and gone offered £650 for .his balance, and Mr. Martin first accepted and thtn refused it. Witness accepted £325 for his half. This was done without Mr. Martin's consent, Edward Shf w, «o/isi-or, admitted his signatures to ffocbinte, &c. Understood that plaintiff ,ulwa)_ consulted" Mr. Martin before making «U'anceß ; and whenever he (witness) west to Mr. Martin about ironey that gentleman told turn to go to Macarthy. Witness and Messie. Ma#arihy and Martin mci/ to discuss the matter, and the latter said iiis book debts of the firm of Brandon, Shaw, and Brandon were worth £4000, and the firm offered £400 for a third share. Subsequently Messrs. Brandon offered £800. und Mr. Macarfchy offered half that aura for his half share io the third, allowing a rebate of £75. Mr. Martin would not accept that, and wanted a receiver uppointed. He said he considered Messrs. Brandon's offer preposterous, and he would drive them iato the Supreme Court if they did not increaue it. Cross-exuniined : The advances were not made on the security of the book debts, bu ton othemecurities which the plaintiff and defendant now hold, and which were marketable at any time. 'Eli's was the plaintiff's case. Mr. Gully submitted that ihe defendant*! security had been damaged by the defendant refusing to act in concert with him. The defendant, callod, deposed that in 1883 he had made an urran cement with Mr. MacarLhy to assist Mr. Slmw in an urgent matter. Objected topa>ing the money which the plaintiff now sued him for.' Pic (Mr. Macarthy) had greatly prejudiced his interest iv the matter by gettJiog as be did. Qlhvx wine, uq doubt,

ho should have had to pay it. His Worship held that an obligation had heen enteied j into by the defendant, and gavo judgment for the amount c'aimed, £83 4a., with costs.