RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 969, 14 June 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

ASHBURTON. —Yestbkday.

Before Joseph Beswick, Esq., H.M. CIVIL CASES.

Murphy v. Larraman, claim L2 6s 6d cutting and burning gorae.—Mr Purnell for the plaintiff, and Mr Wilding for the defendant. The evidence of the principal parties in ?the case having been taken, judgment was given for 6s 6d and costs. Beckett v. Leddy.—This was -a continuation of the hearing of a case concerniny a threshing contract, that had been adjourned for the purposes of obtaining further evidence. Mr Wilding again appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Parnell for the defendant. The evidence now heard was for the purpose of showing the custom in threshing from the stook and the number of men needed in a machine. A number of witnesses having been examined, judgment was deferred till next Friday week. McKerrow and 00. v. Raymond, claim of L2B 14a Bd, amount of a promissory note.—Mr Purnell appeared for the paintiff, and Mr Wilding for defendant.—For the defence it was argued that the money had already been paid, although not to the present holders of the bill but that the defendant in this case had confessed judgment in a previous case, in which the Union Bank was the plaintiff.—Mr Wilding called'Frederi k Pavitt, who said the bill in dispute was endorsed by him after it was due. The accounts put iu represented witness’s dealings with Raymond. In November the Union Bank was holding this particular bill for collection, and not as security for an overdraft. The promissory note now produced was the one given to witness by Raymond to settle accounts. |Did not tell defendant that the previous notes he had given were in the hands of the Union Bank. The bills were not discounted, but were put in simply for collection. Witness had an overdraft in the Bank, for which securities were held ; these did include this particular bill. Had never revoked the authority of the Bank to collect bills. Witness was ignorant as to the state of his account, both when the bill was given and when it became due. He believed he could have taken out this particular bill from the Bank without paying for it, and he did not think the Bank would have acted as they did without giving him notice. Did not remember if the|de{en-

'»• ” I i yv . *. “V J dank asked forjtherpld bills when the re-> newels yrere made, arid he never told de > fendant that the bills-were at his house.— At this point the case was adjourned till the following day.

; To-day. Sheep Stealing. —The hearing of the charges, .against Legge for sheep stealing was brought on again. Mr Crisp aghin appeared for the prisoner. Before commencing hia Woisliii’ said that he had made up his mind to commit the prisoner for trial, and he asked the police whether they thought it was worth while going into the other informations. Ik was decided to go on with one more charge, that of stealing one sheep the property of Mr Chapman. Constable Neill deposed that he went to the farm of Messrs Meek on the 7th June. Saw the prisoner in the presence of Messrs Jackson and Chapman. The latter gentleman went to the woolshed, and Mr Chapman identified the skin produced as belonging to him. Witness then arrested prisoner, who made a statement to the effect that he had mustered one day with the object of drafting some of Mr Cameron’s sheep from the flock. Prisoner said that one sheep had -lied, and ho had skinned it. Witness then ordered the whole of the sheep to be mustered as he suspected there were some stolen ones amongst them. When the muster was completed it was fou d that one of the mob had Chapman’s orand on "it, and also Meek’s.— P. B. Bolton gave evidence identifying the earmark on the skin produced as that of Mr Chapman’s.—Edward Chapman, sheep farmer, at Drayton near Methven, said he knew the prisoner was managing Messrs Meek’s : farm, which was close to witness’s. Re&. membered being at Meek’s farm last week in company,with Constable Neill, when ho went to the woolshed and found one skin there belonging to him. The skin • produced*. was • 1 the one, and he identified it by the earmark and the brand. After prisoner’s arrest he mde a statement as to how the -skin came there. [The evidence of the witness on this point was identical with that of the constable.] Was sure that he h»d not sold the sheep.—Cross-examined ; Had only sold some ewes this season. It was quite possible the sheep might have taken tutu when alive. Witness had no other cause of complaint against prisoner —This concluded the evidence in this charge, but at the request of Sergeant Belton another case was heard, viz., the stealing of oneeheep, the property of Andrew Macfarlane, who was the first witness called. His evidence was to the effect that he visited Meek’s farm on the Ist June in company with Messrs Jackson, and there he found,, among the flocks, a sheep which he identified as his. The earmark had been altered, and Meek’s brand was. on the back, but witness’s fire-brand in the cheek was there. The sheep had not been shorn by him, but by . somebody else, and the. brand afterwardi'put on. Could hot say if 1 he liad sold the sheep produced or not. Prisoner, when questioned, professed ignorance as to where the sheep came from. —Messrs Bolton and Julian Jackson also gave evidence.-—The accused was then committed' for trial, and the hearing of other charges was adjourned for a week. ) CIVIL CASKS. ;•

McKerrbw v. Raymond.—The hearing of this case was resumed, when Frederick Pavitt’s examination was confcinUed'by Mr Wilding.—Witness said that he filed his schedule in May last. The Bank held a 'second mortgage on -his house in Cox street as security. The value of the property to the Bank was L 250, and witness’ brother had'given a sehiinty f&r L 250. The bills the Bank held were put in for collection in the ordinary way of business, and there was no special agreement in regard to them. LSOO was ‘the only definite sum ever named by the Bank,"although the overdraft sometimes 1 exceeded that. Did not remember being told that the overdraft would be limited to the amount of the bills held for collection by the Bank. Witness’s brother had only his own word as guarantee for the security they gave to the Bank. He may have sai l that the Bank held' L4OO wortii of good bills. The manager of the Bank told witness that he did not put any value upon Raymond’s bill as security. Endorsed the bill some ten days befpye he' filed his schedule.' ' The Union'Batik had previously sued on bills, but not without consulting with witness. Cross-ex-amined : The bills sued upon were those lei t for collection. At the time the bill sued for was-put in for collection, the witness’s aocountwas in a sound state. It is very common tor business men to leave bills in the Bank if dighon >red, unless it was intended to sue under them. The Bank manager was aware Messrs McKerrow had endorsed this particular bill. Mr Shury was present at the first meeting of witness’s creditors, but he did not remember any remark being made of the bill now being sued for, nor about the bills’ then held by the Bank. Mr Shury did subsequently mention McKerrow’s bill on witness meeting 1 him in the Street, Afterwards asked Raymond to pay the amount, and ho then promised to settle it when he had the money, and he made a payment on account of the bills then current. The L2B bill was given- for the balance of what was owing to witness. Did hot inform Raymond when he (witness) became bankrupt, but the notice was gazetted.—Reexamined : Sometimes a renewal is made while the old bills are in existence and in tbe hands of a third party. Did not know if it was the practice to give the holders of the old bills notice (hat they had been renewed. Mr Shury, at the creditors’ meeting did not call witness “ a d drogue,” for renewing the bill while, the old was in existence. —A. H. Shury, manager of the Ashburton branch of the Union Bank, deposed that Frederick Pavitt was a customer of the Bank in April, 1882 Received two bills from Pavitt on April 4th—one for three the ocher for six months. The account at the Bank was L 64 Os Id, on the credit side on the morning of April 4th, and in the afternoon it was overdrawn L2l. Pavitt had previously been allowed an overdraft, limited at that time to LSOO, provided he had bills and securities up tb that value. The securities were a mortgage over his house and bills for collection. The practical value of the property security was estimated at from LIOO to Ll5O. The Bank held bills of Pavitt’s to the amount of L 259 14s 7d on April 4th. As he increased the bills for collection his overdraft increased, and the bills were held as security. Witness subsequently got a guarantee from ’R and E. Pavitt, but this was part and parcel of the security already lodged. At one time the bills for collection ran up to L 498, and at that date, August 13ch, the' overdraft was LB 13, and subsequently it ran up to L 660, on August 31st. Would not discount the bilip put in the Bank for collection. Witness was not aware that Raymond had paid anything on account of either bills until the 4th May; and witness wrote to the present defendant on the 15th, telling him that the Bank held one of his bills, and warning him not to pay Messrs MeKerrpw as he held , hup, (Raymond) responsible for payment. Was not aware at that time of the existence of the L2B bill. No notice being taken of the witness again' wrote on the 18th saying that the matter would be placed in the solicitor's hands if the hill was not. paid. A summons wee, issued against' ’Raymond for' J, tne" money, 'but witness was not aware of Pavitt having made a renewd. The summons was for L2B 14s Bd, and witness got that amount from Pavitt. Witness had told Pavitt that he intended suing Raymond for the Ld4-bill, and the former said that L 6 had been paid. Just before the issue of

the summons, Pavitt told witness that he had taken a promissory note from Raymond, and he had handed it over to McKerrow. Witness wrote to McKorrow, informing him him that the bank held the original bill, and warning him not to negotiate the note received from Pavitt. Messrs Pavitt of Ohristchur.h had failed, and they refused to pay the guarantee on the ground that the bank held sufficient security, including bills.— Cross-examined: There was a special arrangement between the bank and Pavitt re the bills held for collection being for security. Could not give the date when the arrangement was made, as the account had been running on for two or three years. The arrangement was a verbal one, and was made in Ashburton,.and i confirmed in Christchurch. Could oot give the precise {words' of the letter* 1 ' but the overdraft was continue t to the extent of LSOO. < iave notice to the endorser of the bill so as tojprotecfc him against the d ;awer. Bad gone to Pavitt for the purpose of finding out what Raymond really owed. Witness had heard at that time that Pavitt was about- to -file —To the Bench : Considered that all bills lodged for collection in a bank were held as’ security for an overdraft.—GL D. Raymond said that at the time that he gave the reno'wal to Pavitt, witness asked for the old bill, but was told that he had not got it, but would give it afterwards. asked several times, but had neydC received it. Cross-examined i had applied f>r payment of the L2B’bill several times. Had confessed judgment' in the previous case on the advice of Mi’ .Wilding’s clerk. ■' hen witness first'received the summons he was astonished at' being sued for a bill which he - thought Pavitt had destroyed. Saw Mr Shnryabout the matter, and informed him that •he had renewed that bill, but when hesaw that the Bank,held the right bill, confessed judgment. Did not say anything to Me Shury about McKerrow. Afterwards received a notice from McKercow’s solicitor requesting payment, but could not.say 'whether before or after the conversation,', with Mr Shury. . Knew that held the renewal at the time witness confessed judgment.—Counsel addressed-the Court at some length, and his Worship said he would defer his decision in the case.

M'Rae v. Forbes, claim L 6 58.~Mr,Crisp appeared for the plaintiff, Wilding for the defendant. Mr on behalf the defendant, said thp£ debt was admitted, bat the money,h*d been paid to Mr. 0. B. M. Branson, who Me Forbes considered was authorised to collect accounts for plaintiff.—J. W. M‘ Rae said that AjCr Branson was not authorised to collect accounts on his behalf. , Mr Branson had collected, money for witness, but without authority, and he had told him not to do so. —O. Branson said t tat he had collected the money from Mr Forbes on the authority of the plaintiff—Cross-examined : Was engaged in making up plaintiffs books, and to collect this particular apcount. Did n< >t owe Mcßae (any, money. Only received-LI of the m>ney paid by Gates, and that by plaintiff? ' consent; ' In the presence of Messrs Forbes, PuJar, and Mcßae witness did not s4y that ho was acting as agent tor Forbes.-—To the Bench The accounts were made up .monthly, but the account sent to witness was not made up in that way.—Re-exa-mined : Was authorised to collect Forbes’ account because plaintiff was anxious to get the money in. Sad informed Mcßae that he had received L 5, and had told him that he would give it to him,if he came to his office. This was the day after he received the money. — J, W. Mcßae and Robert Pullar wenti 'totha box and denied the witness Branson’s assertion' about his not gating he was agent for the defendant.—His Worship said that judgment would bo for plautiff, and added he thought it was a very proper case to be brought before the Court. It would be well if people who employed coUectbra of accounts were more careful.

; Ju the cases of McLachlan v. Shepherd, claim of L 4 ; and of Matson, Cox and Go v. Strothers and Smith, claim of L 6 6s ; judgment went by default, Mr Crisp appeared for plaintiff in both cases. >■ The Court then adjourned.