MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1320, 20 August 1886, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

ASHBURTON —FRIDAY. [Before Mr H. O. S. Baddeley, R.M. and Mr D. Thomas, J.P.] civn. c SKS. Borough Council v G. Collier claim 16s Judgment by defau't for the amount claimed and costs. Hanna v Stevens, claim £4s—Mr Wilding for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed and costs. Betts v Smith, claim £2—Mr Guthbertgon for defendant. Plaintiff did not appear,' Judgement for defendant Lowe v Zonoh, claim £22 lOi— Mr Crisp for plaintiff, Mr Raymond of Messrs White and Raymond, of Timaru, for the defendant The plaintiff’s allegation waa that the defendant had undertaken to discount the plaintiffs promissory note for £25 and lodge the proceeds to plaintiff s credit at the Bank. This he had not done and In consequence a cheque drawn by the plaintiff was dishonored. The sum of £l2 10a of the proceeds of the bill was still nnpa’d, and plaintiff claimed this and tho sum of £lO as damages for loss of time, loss of credit, etc.—The defendant admitted having the sum of £l2 10s in his possession, but against this pleaded a set-off amount'ng to' £l2 18j. Mr Raymond raised a question with regard to the stability of part of the claim, bat argument on the point was deferred. —The following evidence was taken: —Charles Hawsen said that h» waa accountant at the Bank of New Zealand. Plaintiff had an account there. On the 12th of July a ohfqao from R-tkaia, drawn by the plaintiff, was presented, bat not paid, because there were no fnnds. If, at any time prior to July 12, £2O had been paid to plaintiff's account the cheque would have been m;-t. —By Mr Raymond ; Witness did not think it was a rule of the Bank to give notice to the drawer of a dishonored cheque. Prior to this one of p’alntiff’s bills for £IOO had been dishonored —Edward Lowe, farmer, residing at Kyle said, with reference to the £IOO bill which the last witness had said was dishonored, that he had paid the amount when the bill became du». It was a matter of arrangement. Saw Z mob on July 7; on that evening gave him has (witness’s) promissory note for £25. Zouoh was to got it discounted to place the proceeds to witness's credit on July 9 Got the receipt (produced) from Zouth Told him ha'wanted the money for seed wheat. Asked him to be sure about paying the money'iQ« and he said there would be no doubt of it. This was the first money transaction witna>s had with the defendant. Was not indebted to him at the time. Witness bought seed wheat on July 15 and went toJDolan’s a second time for seed wheat when Dolan told him his cheque

had been returned from the Bank. This was witness’s first intimation that an; • thing was wrong. If £25 had been deposl ted to witness’s account the cheque would have been met. On the following day came to Ashburton to see Z >uch, who said he had forwarded the bill to Mr Percival who had not returned it or sent a cheque. Complained to Zouoh of not having informed witness of the position of affairs, and said the money must be had at any price. Zouch mentioned a Mr Clark from whom, he said, he thought he could get the money. Went with Zouch to Clark. From the conversation witness inferred that'Zouch expected witness to give- a bill to Clark. Got £25 from Clark by giving a bill at one month for Was obliged to get the money on account of his dishonored cheque. Zouctrafterwards promised to make the amount good. Shortly after ho got Clark’s,,money’wltness 'saw Zouch. He gave details of a conversation which took place with reference to a lien which was being by Percival over witness’s crop. Witness asked Zouch what his commission would be. Zouoh replied that he was act’ng fcr Percival, but that if witness chose to give! him a guinea it would be acceptable. On the same day, in consequence of what Z->uch’s partner told him, witness went to £ouch in refer-

ence to the first promissory note. Witness said that he had heard the note had been discounted and if he found that was so be would make ' out a police case against hi#}. i?ouch denied that the note had been discounted, and suggested that witness . should write to Percival about the mallei Witness replied that he woo d htfS no half measures ; that he woi U either trust to Zouch or pot the matter into the hands of the police. Zouch said he would come to witness’s place rfn the following b unday. He also said thatfhe was goiog to' Chrict;hurch on the Monday to seo Perciral. and from thence he would forward either the promissory note or the money to witness. On the following

Thursday witness received a letter will a cheque for £l2 10s Prior to receiving that letter witness had uo knowledge oi his first bill having been discounted in fact Zouch had frequently assured him that it had net Some time afterward! witness asked Zonch if Mr Perciral bad discounted the bill Zouch replied "No,’ and said that be bad done it himself.

Witness bad last a great deaf, of .time in oonm ction with the matter. (Mr Baymond to tftis evidenoa as damages, if claimed in connection therewith, were too remote. —Mr Oilsp replied, arguing that the evidence w i r ’mi 'ibie—The Bench' upheld Mr F ymond’s contention— Ataother question es to loss of credit by the plaintiff was di llowed ) The first time witness heard 6f any set off was in the f Courthouse a week ago. Had a conversation with Z >uch on the day the suia npßs was. taken out. Z mob eased witness,. to go with him to Christchurch and Peieival would give an ■advance to witneaa’s bill , with his (Zouch’s) endorsement to the amount of £l3O. Witness said the matter was In his solictor’s hands. Zouch promised to send the balance of £l2 10) to wltnes) a few days after. The witness was examined in the items of the set off at soma length.—By Mr .Raymond : Had never given Ziuch notice he was going to claim £22 10s. Did not ask Zouch to make a valuation of witness’s farm, but believed Z >uch had

written to Mr Peroival about the mat er,

Zmoh endorsed Clark’s bill.—This was

the ease for the plaint'ff, and Mr Raymond called the defendant, William Hall Zouch, who said that about the middle of

June he met Lowe, the plaintiff. He spoke about a lieu on bis crop, and an advance on a second mortgage. Witness said he was in a position to do it if the security were good enough. Defendant was going to see some ilms in Christchurch about the matter and said that if he w ere unsucce sful he would, again see witness. . Subsequently he told witness ho had been unsuccessful!, and on July 7 winess went to Christchurch with plaintiff fo see Peroival. Peroival said that if witness was satlsfi d as to

Lowe’s position be would make the ed*

ranees provided Lowe gave a lien on nortgaga of stock over bis horses and sarta. Told Lowe in Hntcheaon’a presence vbat the cost woo’d be—lo per cent and > per cent commission. £SOO waa the unonct applied for. That evening Lowe told witness that he wanted aome money to buy some seed wheat, and asked witness to discount a bill. Witness said he thought he could do it Lowe signed the bill and witness gave him a receipt. Told Lows st the time that if he could not get the bill discounted he would forward it to Christchurch. Witness endorsed the bill and thus became liable. Witness mentioned a subsequent' date In the receipt, for the payment of the proceeds of the bill in order that be might communicate with Mr ParviesL Witness received the amount about July 18th.. Witness was not satisfied with Lowe’s position, and that was the reason he did not pay the amount into plaintiff's credit at the Bank. Witness told plaintiff that bis (witness’s) commission for discounting the bill would be 20 per cent., or 25 1. Mr Per Ivafa, he said, would be £2 10s, this would be reduced, however, if the £SOO loan were effected. Previous to witness getting the money on the bill from Ur Percival, plaintiff came to him and said that he must have some money at once for seed wheat that evening. Witness took him to Mr Clark’s. Did not eay anything about making the amount good. Witness endorsed the bill to Clark, and Lowe went away satisfied. Arranged with plaintiff to value his farm, and the sum of three guineas 'barged by plaintiff was a fair one. On the 29th witness got back the bi’l from Percival at Lowe’s request. He paid Lowe £l2 10; he did not send him any more because he bad a contra account against him. ( ; he Bench conid not understand why the witness stated in his letter that he would send the balance by the next mail.) Some further evidence was taken.—The Bench pointed ont that the defendant had not pei formed his part of the agreement to pay the money into the plaintiff's account at the Bank, The defendant sbonid have paid the £25, less £2 10s and £1 ss, into the Bank, and not having done this be had not performed his part of the con! not.—After some remarks from council an adj urnment lor" five minutes was made ia order that the parlies might endeavor to arrive at a settlement —No agreement was cime to and the defendant, W. H. Z inch, was cross* examined by Mr Crisp at some length.— G. Hntchenson, commission agent in Obristchnrcb, gave evidence as to what had occurred on one of the occasions when Lowe and Z/nch both visited Percival’s office. The charges in the defendant’s ret oft he considered fair and reasonable with the exception of .the charge of £2 10* in connection with Clark’s Bill.—F. Clerk discounted a bill for Lowe on J .ly 16 The bill waa endorted Z .uch and Macpheison,”— This waa all the evidence—Mr Pay mend addressed the Court with reference to the claim for £lO damages, which he submitted were too remate and. were therefore not recoverable. He quoted authorities io support of bis contention. —Mr C.isp replied. The Bench said that it was a case in which they felt the greatest ccmmiaeration for the plaintiff, who deserved to obt- in damages from the defendant. The defendant had acted in a very strange manner throughout, and bad not performed his part of the contract* Nona of the items of the set eff would be allowed, and judgment would be given for plaintiff for £l2 10s and costs. UNREGISTERED DOG. John Netherby, for being the owner of an unregistered dog, wa« fi el 10a and costs. H -BSE XT LARGE' John Netherby waa charged with allowing a horse to wander at large : Fined 7s 6