RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1261, 23 May 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

ASHBURTON. —To-d at. ‘ (Before H 0. S. Baddeiey, Esq., R.M ) | CIVIL CASK. Friedlander Bros. v. Ivory, claim of , L 96 2s 7d.—Mr Purnell for the plaintiffs, Mr Spacliman for defendant.—ln this case, which was heard last Thursday, the Resident Magistrate delivered the following judgment:—“ In this ease I have considared°the authorities cited by learned counsel, and also those kindly put before me by a learned counsel not in the case, and I am of opinion that I have jurisdiction. This matter seems to be one of I account between ivory and Franz, and Friedlander Bros, are in the position to hand in their account sales and pay over any balance that they ..may show to be due to Ivory looking to Ivory in the event of any deficiency. I seo no reason from the evidence to doubt the boivijidcs of Friedlander Bros., and I felt bound to admit the account sales as the best evidence procurable under the ciroumstanes, ithis Court not having the power as the Supremo Court has of ordering a commission to take evidence. It also seems that it is in the ordinary course of business that account ■ales between London and Now Zealand would be unquestioned, unless there is something in the shape of fraud suspected. I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the London agent was in the position of being the mutual agent of Friedlander Bros and Franz. Franz was cognisant of the fact that the flour was consigned to the plaintiffs’ London agent. Ido not see how Ivory could expect to receive the L3B from Friedlander Bros. 1 do not say that Franz could expect that sum from Ivory, but I think that Franz might with more show of reasea expect such a sum from Ivory than Ivory from the plaintiffs. Friedlander Bros transferred the account with all its advantages and also all its losses; unfortunately for the defendant there has been a loss here, snd this it is whore the transaction seems to be objectionable to him. I shall not take the slightest notice of the bill of sale. The judgment will be for the plaintiffs with costs.” Mr Wilding, for Mr Spaokman, asked that judgment might he stayed for five days to allow the defendant time to appeal. The request was granted.