DISTRICT COURT.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXII, Issue 2586, 19 November 1867, Page 4

DISTRICT COURT.

Saturday, November IG. [Before His Honor C. D. R. Ward.] His Honor took his seat at 10 o'clock. PHASER AND ANOTHER V C. E. LUXEORD. In this case a suit had been entered to 'recover tho sum of £88 5s for goods sold and delivered. Neither party put, in an appearance when the case was called on. BERNARD T MORTON. The amount claimed in this action was £22 12s 6d, on account of goods sold and delivered. Mr Brandon appeared for the defendant, but the plaintiff was not in Court when the case was called on for hearing, and it therefore lapsed. Mr Brandon asked that tho defendant should bo granted costs, to which the Court consented. ANDERSON AND OTHERS V BOYLE. Plaintiffs in this caso seek to recover the sum of £29 2s, but the summons not having been served, the cuse had to stand over. TONKS AND ANOTHER V HALES. * This was an action brought to recover the sum of £21 5s 3J-d, duo for goods sold and delivered. Defendant did not appear.

Plaintiff swore that tho defendant had purchased the goods of him, and that tho account rendered was a true and correct one Ho also produced some letters to show that the defendant had agreed to pay tho amount, and Mr E. Baker having sworn to tho handwriting, the Court gave judgment for the plaintiff for tho full amount sued for with costs. OWEN AND ANOTHER V TOLLEY. This action had been entered to recover the sum of £49 12s sd, due for goods sold and delivered, but as neither party was in attendance when the caso was called on, it lapsed. 3IARTIN V WATERS, i Claim, £28 lis 9d, for goods sold and delivered. \ In this case also neithor parly appeared. BURRETT V WHYTE. The plaintiff, by this action, sought to recover the sum of £35, paid by him on a bill of exchange, on behalf of defendant, as was alleged, wrongfully and without consideration. Mr Izard for plaintiff; Mr Borlase for defendant.

Plaintiff, being sworn, deposed : I am a bookbinder residing in Wellington. Defendant is tho landlord of the Coach and Horses Hotel. On the 18th July last I was at defendant's houso. Henry Smith and others were present. Some conversation took place between Smith and defendant, respecting a horse and cart. Whyto asked me if I would back a bill for Smith, to be used in payment for tho horse and cart. I replied " yes." The bill and order wero made out, but as wo had no stamps, Whyto proposed that wo should meet again on Monday morning at his house, and that moanwhilo either party should be off the bargain ; I then loft. On the Monday morning Whyte came to my house, and said he was going to Porirua. I asked defendant if ho hud seen Smith. He replied "yes;" and handed me the bill produced. I remarked that Smith's name was not attached to tho bill, and defendant said, "We will not rob one another." I accepted the bill. I havo been sued upon that bill by Mr Martin, and havo paid tho full amount. I never received a farthing on account of that bill ; nor any consideration whatever. I signed tho bill relying solely on Whyte's statement.

Cross-examined : Defendant came for me on the Saturday. I agreed to endorse the bill for Smith, if the bargain wero settled. I agreed to do it on Smith's account. I did. not hand over nor sign an order for half tho £35. I saw one signed by Smith for the other half of tho purchase money.

Re-examined : Mr Whyto has since sold the horse and cart to Thomas Nidd.

Henry Smith deposed that he was groom to Mr Tonks. On the evening of the 18th July last he was at the Coach and Horses Hotel with Whyle, Burrett, and others. Some negotiations took place about a horse and cart, and it was finally agreed that he should purchase tho horse and cart, pay half the purchase money in cash, and the other half by a three months bill. Tho bargain was to be completed on the following Monday morning ; Mr Whyte saying that in the meantime both parties should bo off the bargain. Witness went to tho Coach and Horsea on the following Monday morning, a 9 was agreed, but did not see defendant. He never authorised defendant to go to plaintiff and say tho matter was all right. Witness never received the horse and cart. It remained on defendant's premises. Witness believed it was now in tho possession of a Mr Nidd.

Cross-examined : On tho Saturday evening the first bill was torn up because defendant said it was drawn up in such a manner that he would havo to pay the money instead of witness. Defendant told him the cart was engaged that evening, but he could have delivered it at once if ho would pay cash down. Ho believed tho Saturday was the 20th of tho month. Witness went to plaintiff's houso on tho Monday morning, about a quarter past ten, and plaintiff was not at home.

Plaintiff's counsel called Thomas Nidd, who, however, was not examined, as Mr Borlase said they would admit that the cart had been sold.

This concluded the evidence for the plaintiff. Mr Borlase, for tho defence, argued that a bargain had been completed on Saturday night, to which plaintiff was a party ; but it was agreed that delivery of tho carriage should take place on the following Monday morning. Burrett had signed the bill on the Saturday night, and thus completed his share of the transaction ; and had merely accepted the bill on Monday morning as a substitute for tho othor, because tho latter was not stamped. As to there being no consideration, that was a matter between Smith and Burrett : and such cases were of evory day occurrence. With regard to fcho sale of tlio cart and horse, Smith had repeatedly received written notice to take delivery of thorn, and afterwards notice that tbey would bo sold at his risk if he did not take them over. As he did not do so, defendant sold them, and was prepared to account to Smith for tho proceeds. Defendant, being sworn, deposed : That on the Saturday evening in question Smith was bargaining about the trap, and said that Burrett owed him money. Witness finally agreed to sell the trap ; taking half the purchase money in a three month's bill, and tho other half in an order upon Burrett to be paid on tho following Monday morning. Both bill and order were drawn up there and then. The order was signed by Smith, and Burrett agreed to pay it. Burrett signed the acceptance. The doouments were at once handed

to witness. Smith went out to look at the horse and carb, and when he came in asked witness to take a pound to bind the bargain, which witness refused to do, finding it would interfere with the two bills. Witness had possession of the acceptance till Monday morning when he took it to Burrett, and tore it up in his presence, because it was not properly drawn up. Burrett then gave him tho acceptance produced. He told Burrett that ho had not seen Smith, and asked him to pay the order, and give him a fresh acceptance, as he wished to go to Porirua at once. Plaintiff asked why he did not get Smith's name to the acceptance. Witness replied that ho did not think it necessary ; that plaintiff's name was the only one required. Burrett said ho could not pay tho order, but if he particularly wanted the money, ho would pay Mrs Whyte that evening. Witness said he did not want him to do that ; and Wednesday morning would do. The trap could not be delivered on Saturday evening, because it was engaged. Witness could not remember anything being said about tho bargain being off till Monday ; it was perfectly understood that the delivery should take place on the Monday morning. He had since given Smith notice in writing to take i away the cart.

The bill and order wero then pub into the Court, but wero objected to by Mr Izard upon the ' grounds that they were not in accordance with the provisions of the Stamp Act ; and that even if they wore, tho .acceptance could not bo taken ns a valid agreement, as Smith's name did not appear upon it. ' ; It was agreed that the case should bo adjourned until Monday, in order that these points might be argued by counsel. Tho Court then rose.

Monday, November 18. The Court opened at 10 o'clock. MOSS v JOnNS. This was an action brought to recover the sum of £30 7s, the valuo of a bill of exchange, and interest thereon. Defendant did not appear, and on the plaintiff swearing to tho signature of defendant attached to the bill, the Court gave judgment for the former for the amount of the bill, 18s lOd inte rest, and 24s costs. BUURKTT V. WIIYTE. Arguments in this caso wero heard ; Mr Izard contending for plaintifTand Mr Borlase for defendant. His Honor gave judgment for plaintiff, with costs. W. P. PICKERING- V; R. ARCHIBALD. Mr Izard for plaintiff, Mr Borlase for defendant. This case, in which plaintiff sought to recover £99 14s 4d, as the balance due on an account for money advanced, &o» to defendant, had been referred to arbitration afc tho last sittings of th& court. The award of the arbitrator, Mr Ramie, was now brought up. It was to tho effect that the plaintiff should pay to the defendant tho sum of £21 10s Id; that the defendant should immediately upon payment of this sum transfer theft vo shares of the N.Z.S.N. Company to the plaintiff, and that the costs of thoaward, amounting to> £7 10s ought to be paid by tho plaintiff. The Court confirmed the award, and orderodl the plaintiff to pay costs. This concluded tho business.