CIVIL CASES.

West Coast Times, Issue 690, 20 December 1867, Page 4

CIVIL CASES.

Bonderson v. Reiber and Peterson — Mr Rees for the plaintiff; Mr Button, and with him Mr Harvey, for the defendants. The plaintiff claimed to recover from the defendants the sum of LIOO " money due to defendant as endorsee and payee of a Bill of Exchange accepted by defendants in favor of Charles Nielson, and endorsed by the said Charles Nielson to plaintiff, and due and payable on November 8, 1867, now overdue and no paid. Peter Bonderson deposed that he was a miner living at Ross. He had received a Bill of Exchange for LIOO from Charles Nielson. ' It is now in possession of Reiber and Petersen. Rieber told witness so a fortnight ago. (Bill produced.) The endorsement on the back of the bill is Neilson's. Witness gave Neilson full coiisideration for it. He has applied to him for payment of the bill. He is the drawer. Witness has had a conversation with Reiber and Petersen. They said they were prepared to pay the bill whenever it was produced. The bill has never been paid. Cross-examined by Mr Button — Witness destroyed a bill for LBB, acceptedy by him in favor of 0. Iversen. It was given to him at Ross. Witness afterwards gave to C. Iversen, this bill for LIOO as security for LIS. Mrs Bonderson and her brother were present on both occarions. Witness gave Iversen the bill for LIOO, as security for the balance (L 18) due on the LBB. Witness received no money for it from Iversen; He paid L2O in August, and LSO on the 6th of September, off the LBB bill, leaving LlB still due. Witness gave two bills for JLBB, one at two months, the other at four months. Witness refused to endorse the bill for LIOO. Witness did not produce the money when he offered Iversen the balance (L 18) due on the bill. Witness has not seen Iversen since. He did not expect Iverson to give up the bill, unlesß he paid Mm the whole of the money due on it. Reexaiuined by Mr Rees — Iveraen refused to take the LlB. He said he would have the full amount of the bill. Witness told him he had the LlB in the house. Mr Button moved for a non-suit. Plaintiff had not shown that the bill was not paid. The presumption was that the bill was paid. The plaintiff parted with the possession of the bill to a third parry, and he could not sue upon it until he had obtained possession of it. The fact of the bill having passe 1 from the possession of his client, was presumption that it was paid. Mr Button here quoted from Taunton's .cases— Marsh v. Rowe — in which it was laid down that if the holder of a negotiable instrument part with the custody of it he cannot sue upon it till recovery. Mr Rees contended that the plaintiff had sworn that the bill was not paid. The bill in this case was not a negotiable instrument, therefore the case quoted by Mr Button did not apply. Mr Button here stated that he admitted the bill hi this case was not a negotiable instrument. His Worship did not see that Ihe plaintiff's property in this bill was such as to enable him to sue upon ifc. He could not sue on it until he had paid that money for which he had given the bill as security. The plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited. Mr Rees gave notice of appeal, on the ground that as the bill was not a negotiable instrument the plaintiff was the only person entitled to sue.

Matthies t. Cassius.— The plaintiff" chimed to recover from the defendant the sum of L6l 18s, being the value of certain goods detained by the defendant from the plaintiff. — Mr Rees for the plaintiff; Mr Button and with him Mr Harvey for the defendants. — Julius Matthies deposed that a list produced enumerated the articles hired by him to a Mr Cox. They were sent by witness to Mr Cox's house (Q.C.E. Hotel). At Cox's request witness went on Thursday, the 28th November, for the furniture. Mr Cassius refused to allow the furniture to be removed. He gave the man in possession notice not to allow anything to be removed. "Witness told Mr Casaius that certain furniture in the house was his property. — Cross-examined by Mr H arvey — Cox was to pay witness L 5 a week for twelve weeks, with the option of pui'cl.asing it at L sat the end of that time. Cox only paid Lls on account ot rent. The L 5 a week was to be paid on account of rent only, and was not as part payment of the furniture. — Patrick Casey deposed that he was in charge of the "Q..C.E" premises. Witness saw Matthies there on two or three occasions. He did not hear what passed between Matthies and Mr Cassius. The latter told witness not to allow anything to leave the house. John Johnson deposed, that he was barman at the Q.C.E. Hotel, from the time Cox took the hotel till he gave it up. Witness heard Mr Cassius tell Casey not to allow anything to go out of the house. He heard Matthies and Mr Cassius talking about the furniture. Mr Harvey moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that tie plaintiff had parted with the property and possession of the goods. He was not entitled to sue. Mr Rees replied. His Wor•hip called upon the defendant to proceed with his ease. M. A. Cassius deposed, that he is the owner of the Q.C.E. Hotel. Mr Cox was witness's tenant. He became insolvent. Rent amounting to L2B was owing at that time. Witness distrained for rent. The bailiff, in possession on a distress warrant from the Resident Magistrate's Court, was instructed by the witness to keep possession of the house and furniture on his account. Cross-examined Ly Mr Rees — Mr Hawkins, on behalf of Sequestrator, took possession of the premises. Witness remembered the plaintiff claiming a portion of the furnfrure. George Frederick Hawkins deposed that be was acting under power of attorney for Mr Graham, Inspector in Bankruptcy and Sequestrator in the eßtate of Cox, a* bankrupt. Witness took possession of the promises. Ho found a mau in possession for Mr Cassius for rent. No demand was made by Matthies for any goods. The furniture was sold to satisfy the rent, and the balance, if any, was to go to the estate. Cross-ex-amined by Mr Rees — Witness took possession on the 29th instant. Mr Casßius was in possession two or three days before. Witness gave orders for the goods to bo sold. His worship reserved judgment till the following morning.

The other defended cases were adjourned till the following day. The Court was then adjourned till Eleven /<)Vlook nexfc daj.