RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 1628, 9 December 1879, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

IIMABU— MoNDix, Deo. 8. (Bcforo Richmond Bectham, Esq., R.M.) „ . .... , : . Z-AHCENX. Henry Ncvillo Chamberlain won charged with having, m April, 1877, stolon a watoh. Inepoctop -Pondor, : who oppenrcd to ' prosocuto, asked for a .remand for oight days, which was granted. 1 . ; cint oasbs. . Judgment by default was given m llio following cases :— A. St. Q. Hamersloy t. "W. Wiggs— Claim, £37 18s 94. T. Howloy t, V. 0. Shriropton— Claim, £1. M. Murphy v. J. AllpMss— Claim, £1. At a later etngo this caee wan ordprol to bo re-inetntod on Ilia application of defondnnt, who^ Wiis ordered lo pny tho coils of rehonrini:. B. Murphy v. E. Coouihan— Claim, £8 12a 6d. Samuol Heyeod v. Thomas Butler— Cloim> £2l4aCd. Mr Hnuiorslpy appeared for the doTcndnnt. In this caso tlio plaintiff sued for wngoo. lie had been nino days m tlio employ of the drfoudant, but. Iho ninount of tho snlnry he xiat to rccoivo bad pot brcn &xod. Ho tra» loft m cbargo of tho hotel at Altuiry by Mrs Butter, end when |»ho returned homo on that evening tho told him ho wns drunk, and that ho had better go ami lio down. 11 0 mid ho did not think ho was drunk, but, Ibai. if sho snid .ho was, ho would lio down. She then Baid sho would not hnrn him any longer. John iltt'l and Cbarloa JacVson sworo tint tlicy were all day at tho Hotel, and thnt thoy did not sea tbo plaintiff drunk. Mrs Dutfor said that when sho returned homo tbo plaintiff was drunk. Sho told him to go' nnd lid down, that ho might bo able to BSM»fc her' lnter on m the evening. lie replied that if she spoke to him m that way, ho would go altogether. He then loft. She did sot order him to go. James Meadows and James Coleman both stated thnt they saw tho plaintiff drunk that evening m tho hotel. His Worship gare judgment for the plaintiff for 25p, without corts. Hinman Jackson v. James Speight— Claim, £48 17» Cd. Mr Terry appeared for tho plaintiff, and Mr Hnmrrslej for tho dofendnnt. Tho plaintiff m this easo iB a farmer Hiring at Plawaiit l'uiut, iiml tho Uufuudanta brewer

tiring m Dunedin. The chuso of action aroi under t.'io following rircnmstancos. Tho plninliff had 200 bushels of barley ptorod m Mr Orm.-by'« eloro lu-t Juno, and ho ••old a man named Philpot to tell tho barley for. him. Philpot aucrecded m selling it to tho defendant. The defonco was that the defendant hid no knowledge of thn plaintiff m the tratißaction, and. that the dofendant purchased the grnin "from a m.-n named Hudfield, to whom he had given credit for tho pri -c of it. The evidence of tho plaintiff, Qcomo Philpot. and tTnUfield, together with some letti-rs and telegrams which wero produced, sent to »how that Philpot was m Hndfield's employment at the time t*io transaction took place. Phil pot spoko to defendant m tho storo, and defendant e»id he could not ray wild her he would buy the barley or not until ho saw a cample of it. A man named Disbcr was sent for a cnmplo of the barley, and Philpot bring bu«y, Had field took tbo eamplo t? the defendant, at i ho Clarendon bold. Tho r.urcbuso was afterwards completed by a note sent by defendant from Dunedin to lladfiYld, instructing him to buy as hard as ho could, pnd forward tho barley by the Beautiful Star. The defendant stated that ho believed ho hnd been treating with ITadSelil us principal m tho transaction, and thnt ho crodiicd UadGeld with ihe prico of tho grain, but it wan rhown by the evidence of Pnilpot that ho was told at the beginning the grain, belonged to the plaintiff. A telegram from the plaintiff to defendant, which |was nod also, showed (hat defendant must have known tbnt plaintiff was owner of the barley, as it was to the effect that the barley had been shipped, and that he (plaintiff) would not dcnl with an intermediate parly m the transaction. TUo euse occupied a long time, and after counsel had nddrrsfed the Court at considerable length, ; ; His Worship. ■ mid thnt m a caso like this he felt much inclined to envy a jury, who had only to 'it still and look wise while a ense proccedod, and to say simply "Yes" or "No" at Us conclusion. It was incumbent upon him to Rive, some reasons for bis Tea or JSo ; but m this cuee be would give them very briefly. They had m the first place the statement of Jackson, wkoio property the grain was, to the effect that he inttruct'd Philpot to sell, and they had the statement of Philpot who aold the grain. They bad the statement of Had Held that he never had anything to do with the grain. With respect to the evidence of the lalter witness, liin Worship s<id that ho was prepared to concnr to a considerable extent with tho learned counsel for the defendant, that this witness's evidence was somewhat confused, that, m fact, the witness was suffering from an aberration of intellect, to which those who were about to throw themselves upon I heir country through the Bankruptcy Laws wero peculiarly liable. Persons m the position of this witness siw things m lights and colors different from those' m which other people saw them. With; respect to tho evidence of Speight it was impossiblo to ignore tho fnct that the witness was directly interested m disputing the account as against Hadfield, and this interest may have induced Speight to shut bis eyes to what ho otherwise would have seen. Ho had no doubt tho keenness of the business man, and nothing moro than tho ordinary k?cnncts of tho business man, caused him to shut his eyes to certain things. Then thero was the freight note from Philpot, and the telepram, which had been produced. In the faca of all these facie, judgment ronld only go one way, namely, for tho plaintiff. The case bad been: heard at great length, and Tory patiently, and from the facts of the case, no other conclusion could bo arrived at. ' : Judgment was therefore given for pluint'ff; for tho: full amount, and costs, £6. 35. : ■ Jonas, Hart, and Wildio t. K. Gruodison: and 00.-r-Claim, £10 17s Id, moneys! paid on account of defendant. - Mr Hamersley (instructed by Messrs White and Jameson) appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Toeßwill for the defoudant Goodison. M. J. Hart : I am ono of tho plaint iff ». We suo defendants for £10 17s' Id, p»id on their account on April 24th last. R. Ooodisoo and Co. sent up oomo horses from Duuedin, and , wo .. had . instruction?,: -I ■ bdiovo from Boborts, to sell them. The monpy.wq tuo for was paid by ua for their carriage by rail from Dunedin. • '■•■ To Mr Toeswill : We havo sued Goodison before for this, with other amounts, and wore nonsuited. I could not any whothor an account for this money paid for railway charges was rendered separately before the summons was isiaed. I, have not the original, accounts here. I cannot sirenr that a detailed acconnt of tho moneys owing to us was sent to tho defendants boforo tho summons was issued. .-.-.-, Mr Tosswill submitted that a nonsuit should bo granted, on the ground that plaintiffs had divided tho cause 'of action. On a previous .occasion plaintiffs bal sued. for' tho balance of an account of which the sum now sued for formed one oC the items. He contended that m suoing for tli-s item alone, they 'were' dividing tho cause of action, which was not permissible. His Worship pointod out that as a nonsuit was granted m the farmer case this became an original claim, and must bo treated as such, - though obtaining judgment . upon it might prevent an action upon another item of the same, account being maintained. , Robert Gooditon : I was served with a summons on the 17th July lavt. i The duoament produced is a copy of it Mr Hiinorsley objected that tho original summons, the one by which Mr Goodiso* was brought before tho Court, ought to be produced. _ ~.,.- Mr Tosswill said the copy was a truo one and wi9 a. record of tho Court' . He would put m tho copy for what it was worth., • His Worship said it was worth riot hinj. A summons could not be used to prove that a cause of action had been divided. ' T. HowJey, Clerk to the Court) "was called by Mr Tojswill to provo that the tnmmins of which the copy was produced was istucd m the ordinary course. The amount' claimed was £67— £55 10s cash and £1 10s interest. B. Goodison : I sent up some bones by Roberts to Jonas, Hart and Wildie, to be sold by them; amongst others tho right referred to m this action. I had also sont up previously iome drays and buggies. I believe the horses' 'were 'sold. I received account sales from Jonas, Hart and Wildio, for. all. Iho horses and other things they sold for inc. 1 hare not tho account solos for those 'eight, horses #ith mo, ' '• ' ■ ' ' ■_'', ' | : : To Mr HnrnordcyY I,'cantlot swear that the, horses wbro sold j but 1 expect they wore.. It is a usual thing for tho auctioneers to ad- j Vance the freight upon stock tent t» them for salo. M. J. Hart,- recalled : The list time wo sold anything for Goodison and C>. was on tho 12th April, and. this lot of eight horses cstno up onthe 24th April. ■ ' To Mr Tosswill : Thoro is no doubt that if Mr Goodison did not send them himself, lie was tho causa of their beingeont. Wn had a running aco-.'unt with (Joodison up to the April. On that date- tho balance was brought down and.dobilcd (ohim. On Ihe7lh July.a summons wps Inkon out on which a nonsuit was recorded, and m which a sum of £10; 17s Id was debit od against Qoorti«on and-liobirtr. Mr TosewiU submitted that it was proVed that tho ctturo of action.- had been divided, and quoted a caso to show thnt this was not pormissibla m cases of rinniing nccotinls. If a man had a claim on n running account he must suo for tho wholo nfc onro, and if its amount placed it beyond tho jurisdiction of ono Court, ho must take • it to another Court. Plaintiffs had got judgment for one Hem, and now thoy sued for a second. Ilia Worship eaid it must be' proved tlut this wtia a claim for a second portion of n runi)i"R .account, nnd this gcould only bo proved from tho pluintiir's book*, whioh MrTosiwill should have taken caro to, havo had produced. . Mr Tosjwill asked for an adjournment, that ho might cause, the books to be producod. Mr Hamersloy objected, and on the merits of tho case asked for judgment for plaintiffs. His Worship said that on tho merits of the cose— on tho admwion of the dofondint that ho Bent up tho got-d*, and tho btatemont of tho plaintiffs that they had paid tho money— tho plaintiffs were entitled to a judgment m thoir favor; but if it could be shown from the books that tbo causo of notion had been divided, the judgment must go the other way. Ho would Bdjourn tho enso till noxt day, m order that the books might bo produced. Tho Court adjourned till ten o'clock this moruiiig.