A COMPLICATED CASE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 8249, 23 February 1905, Page 3

A COMPLICATED CASE.

At the Magistrate's Court * this morning, bsfpre Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M., Harry Deal and Walter Powell Deal (Mr Byrne) claimed £37 16s 9d from Isabella Hall (Mr Francis). Mr Francis, wjio appeared for the defendants, said that he desired his Worship to admit a counter-claim. The counter-claim had been filed,' but too la»te to come before the Court that day, and he asked that the action should be abridged in 'order to admit it. His Worship said that he did not see why such a course should be lightly taken, as there was no speoial connection between the daim and the counterclaim to take th© two together. If the lawyer for the defence who had charge of the preliminary arrangements did not make it his business tp comply with the rules it was no reason why he should be asked to assist him over the stile. The application "would be refused. Mr Franci s said that the defendant confessed judgment for items amounting to £7 3s lOd and admitted the other amount to be correct, although prepared to dispute liability for it. W. P. Deal stated that hehad met C, Boxshall, the manager of the Book-lovers'. Library ror Mrs Hall last July, and as witness was then going into another business he had several agencies which he wished to transfer. Boxshall said that perhaps he could work several of f them advantageously with his other business, and witness transferred them on the terms he held- He told Boxshall that ho could take the samples and the small stock he had on hand- Boxshall did so, and although witness desired that it should he a cash arrangement Boxshall said that his firm was hard up, and he gave a promissory npte at four months, which had been disnenoured. No definite arrangement was made as tp payment, but there was oertainlv no agreement that tfpx?nan should only pay cash when he got the agencies of the Australian Mutual. H. G. Deal stated that he was a brother of the previous witness, trading as Deal Brothers. When, he palled upon Boxshall for the balance of the mpney for the agencies the latter said tnat there had been misrepresentation made in regard to the agenoies. but witness satisfied him of his power to transfer them. The promissory note was Held by the bank to be incomplete and would not be received by it. Boxshall had told him that he still held the samples, as they had been handed over fc °In Stating the defence, .Mr Francis said he would allege speoial cpntraot for sale in. the first place, which had been broken, and in the second place the sale of goods had been conditional. C A Boxshall said he was a partner'in the business of the Booklovers Library. In regard to the agencies, W P Deal had undertaken to secure him 'the appointment as agent for the Australasian Commercial Association. Plaintiffs had stated that they had been sole agents for Canterbury and sole agents for New Zealand for some ar* ticles, and all the business had to go through them- Jt was Stated fcy plain* tiffs that some of the samples h&d been received free, and the others they had to pay for. He had only arranged tp take over the stock solely m consideration of the transfer of the agency being confirmed, and such had not been done. The stock,- which was still intact, was no good ta defendant, and he hsTa enly taken delivery W the contingency ef getting the agency. In reference to the promissory npte, TTitneps had said .thai; he would not pay till he got the agency, and as plaintiff said there would- be np difficulty abput that he gave him the biU'tp discount. In the matter pf the £7 3s lOd, he admitted that that was a case of sale and purchase