CIVIL SIDE.

Thames Star, Volume VI, Issue 1860, 18 December 1874, Page 2

CIVIL SIDE.

JAMES BAB V. JOHK NOETOK. This was a claim of £17 10s Od, the amount of a promissory note. Plaintiff said the defendant had paid him £4 13s 6d, and agreed to pay the remainder of the amount in weekly instalments of £1. His Worship gave judgment for the balance, and costs, £1 9s. JT. W. SHAW V. J. C. D. BOWDKK. This was a claim of £7 9i 6d. The defendant did not appear and judgment was given for the amount and costs, £14s. PULLEINE V TETLET. This was a claim of £14 3s lOd, for commisson, etc. The amount was made up of four items. Mr Macdonald for plaiiitiff, Mr Tyler for the defence. Mr Tyler said his client disputed each of the items, except the £5 7s 4d: he acknowledged that, and had tendered it, but the defendant wouldn't take it. The £14 3 lOd had also been paid into Court. It appeared that the disputed items referred to a period when Mr Pulleine was simply acting as clerk to Mr Dow«i en. < Mr Macdonald submitted that the notice of payment was defective, the items on account of which the money! was paid into Court were not explicitly

stated, according to the 9th. section of the Resident Magistrate's Act. Mr Tyler replied that ho did not rely upon the payment at all—the defence had done more than was neceessary. All that was necessary was to come into Court and tender; and the defendant had merely paid the money into" Court in order that it might be there for the purpose of payment. "''■■- Mr Macdonald said the defendant had misled the plaintiff by Jtheaciion hj had taken. Whctlier^tiie' "rricmey"■.'.'was paid into Court : ;, becauseifc yeas owing,; or whether to support thepleaof tender it Was equally necess-ary to give fiotiee s -Whether the defend nt pleaded tljafc ho hfld|tiii. dercd or not the faeti remained thai :£he money was pajd. into Court; and the defendant having tai^ advantage. b,f that, the necessity remained to comptyVwith the section m giving notice.: ;'" - His Worship said, to save time, they had better dispose of the of tendering first. -•* Sarah Tetley was called ./or the purpose of being examined as to the question of tender. Witness said she had offered to pay Mr Pulleine atsutn of money. After she received the..bill produced,/rom j/Lv PuUeine, she weiit up on Pridayfihe 25th of December. She took a witness (ATr MacMahon) with iher. VShi" saj?rtMri Ptl!!fti^- *!» the;hoi^ se» and said;^h©r: " 1 ell Mr Pulleine Ii want to pay l»iTOthe money.l owe him,."; MrsrPulletne said he was ill. Witness saw him in his bedroom, and going up to; the, door,qasked him to take the money. He said, "lirill not.". Witness had £6,10s with her" to pay the money; Mr^PuHl&ne said he would come and. see witness,at her own house, but he did not come, and he^t day summoned her, , . _ . Mr Macdonald cross-examined the witness. She said she: received a previous bill, but it was not correct. The bill for which she had tendered the money was not correct either. She went to Mr Enlleine because he said he would Bummon her if she did not pay. She waVsnre she was not induced to ; £ay the money because of a summons being taken Tout. She heard nothing of it .except from Mr Pulleine. She went to his office but he •wasn't there..(,/;;,•... .1.,,-.};; ;," ; Wm. McMahdn swore to having been a witness to the.tendering of the money. Frederick Arther Pulleine said when plaintiff called he was-unwell, and confined to his bet). s- He neither sfcir Mrs Tetley nor[heard the jingle of money. Mr Macdohald^aid to constitute a tender something more:;wasrr©quired than the jingle of money through a wall. His Worship said he was satisfied about the tender. Mrs Tetley had endeavored to; pay the money, and the plaintiff should have taken it. ;F. A. Pulleine was examined as tofthe items. He had taken the valuation of defendant's property. He iras acting for Mr Dowden at the time, but had an interest in the business. The transaction in this instance was with himj and the account had not been rendered until he had done so.

The camelias set down in the bill against the valuation witness had taken in part payment of the valuation sometime after he had the camelias from defendant, he did say he would take them in liquidation of the valuation account, if the rest were: settled, but defendant would not do that. Witness was then examined as to the other items in the bill. Further evidence was elicited. The ledger used by Mr Pullein6 — formerly [ that of Mr Dowden—was put in evidence. ■: „ ;.-;,,. ■ ■■■•,..-. , ,;-'.^H;; -. The defence relied for its case chiefly upon the fact of a receipt which was also put in evidence. It appeared that the defendant in this action had owed Mr Dowden certain money and that a settlement was made previous to Dowden's handing the business over to Pulleine. Defendant received a receipt from Mr Dowden which absolved him from all dues and demands by Dowden. The defendant alleged that a certain number of the items in the whole amount sued for were those included in the receipt of acceptance. It appeared, moreover that there were certain sums which had never been claimed at all previous to the summon*. The case was very protracted, and space will not admit of the curiously minute details which would afford a keener comprehension of its bearings. Mr Macdonald addressed the Court at lenglh. A nonsuit was recorded, with costs, £7