SUPREME COURT.

Western Star, Issue 1678, 25 June 1892, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

Wednesday, June 22, John Brazier Y. James B. Lindsay. —Claim, £6 15s Id, proceeds of coal sold by defendant on behalf of plaintiff. Defendant paid £1 14s 2d into Court in full satisfaction of the claim, and put in a set-off for £5, amount of cash lent. —Mr Macalister appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Henderson for defendant. —Plaintiff stated that defendant had acted as agent for him in Invercargill, the’ arrangement being that he should receive nine shillings for the household coal and eight shillings for steam coal, less five per cent. He denied that defendant ever lent him money, or that he had ever received a letter from him in reference to a loan. —James Beveridge Lindsay said that on November 19 plaintiff came to him atid stated that he was pushed for money, and in the presence of his wife defendant gave him £5. The agreement was that be should receive five per cent, commission on all coal sold, and he understood that the £5 would be deducted off money coming to plaintiff from the sale of the coal. Although the reference to the loan came after the signature to the agreement the signature applied as well to the £5. A copy of a letter alleged to have been written by defendant to plaintiff relative to the loan was produced’, but plaintiff denied that he had at any time received a letter from defendant like it, while defendant stated that he wrote the letter and that plaintiff did not dispute owing the £5. —His Worship stated that the question in dispute was, whether, the £5 was owing, and it was quite clear the' onus of proof was upon defendant. If he called the agreement a proof that the £5 was due, it was hard to say what was not a proof. He never before saw such a ridiculous proceeding as for a party to an agreement, after signing that agreement, to add the most important condition underneath the agreement. Judgment would be given for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs £1 11s.

After a tedious hearing, extending over three full davs, the case of Matthew McLeod T. the N. Z. Pine Company was concluded at one o’clock this afternoon, the jury returning a verdict for the plain'iff for the value of the timber, £349, less the cost of docking, £8 odd. Sir Robert Stout, however, applied for, and obtained, a stay of execution, pending an application for a new trial, on the ground of a misdirection to the jury by His Honour Mr Justice Williams.

In the cross actions Union Bank y. ’I. B. Williams (£2416, amount of overdraft admitted), and Williams v. Bank (for £IO,OOO damages for injury to business and credit through, the hank dishonouring two small cheques, for which Williams had made special provision and notified the bank), the gave Williams £l5O damages and 'judgment was given for the bank for ■he overdraft, with interest from I September 1.