MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1426, 7 December 1886, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

ASHBURTON—TUKSDAST. (Before Mr H. O. S. Baddeley, F.M) CIVIL CASES Wilding, Lewisj and Caygill v. Magee, claim £23 6s 61.—Mr Stringer for plaintiffs. Mr Purnell for defendant. —This was a case in which the plat" tfL n ught to recover the amount of £2l 13’ 9d, alleged to have been advanced on : eh«lf trf the defendant, and ii tarest thereon £1 12s Bd, mating a total of £'23 C> sd. The following evidence wa* t->ken :—l'11. Parker, sheriff's ■ ffioer, said that he executed a warrant, Grieg v. Magee. The amount witness was instructed to accept Was paid by a firm in Ashburton. however, refused to pay the costs entailed hy witness taking possession of Magee s farm. When witness informed the defendant to this effect, Msgee said that Mr Caygill, who was acting f r him. Would pay the costs. Witness interviewed Mp Caygill, who subsequently gave him a cheque for the amount of the cost , £2l 13s 9-I.—J A. Caygill det* led the wircumstameß which cn'minsted In the bailiffs be ng put into defendants plaos. The maHer was settled by defendant signing an agreement to mortgage, by a local firm paying "ho sum of £55, and by witness paying £2l 13s 9d, sheriff’s officer’s expenses, these two amounts being paid on defendant’s order. —Thfs wss the esse for the plain'iffs.— Mr Pnrneli moved for s nonsuit on the

Sound that the plaintiffs had not confined with Sect'on £7 of the Law Practitioners' Act.—Mr Stringer submitted that the Section in question did not apply to the prfsent case. The money Involved was net a disbursement bat"a loan.—The M» Isteste determined to reserve his decision on the point. —Mr Purnell called the fol lowing evidence for the defence :—T. Magee, farmer at Ashton, said that about two years ago Mr Grigg obtained a judgment against him in the Supreme C >urt and on that judgfiient put the bailiffs Into wttnes’s place. The bailiff-- went out on this occasion without being paid anything. Witness did not pay them in consequence of advice he had received. Witness subsequently employed Messrs Wilding Lewis and Caygill to effect a settlement between Mr Grigg and himself. The grounds for u settlement were arranged whereby a certain sum of money was to be pdd on witnesses’ behalf by a firm In town and there was no reason why the settlement

should not have been completed at once. Sftfr Mr Oayglll on two or three occasions after this and urged him to eff-os the settlement. When the bailiffs again cam* to witnes's place, witness was surprise! that no terms had been come to Witnes* {informed one of the bailiff's what action ha had taken. A day or two afterwar « the bailiff brought two orders for wi nes*

to sign- One of the orders was on the firm, which It had been agreed should pay the money, the ether was on Mr Cayuiil tor the amount of costs there was in add - tlon »n agreement to mortgage. Witness algaed the order for £55 bat declined to sign the order for costs, "The bailiff said that if Mr Caygitl would not pay the costs Mr Qrigg would have to do so. The bailiff would not deliver the mas Sige and witness wro e on the order • memorandum to Mr Cay-il instructing him to not pay the costa and to '»Ve no farther steps in the matter Witness did not tell Parker that Mr (3»ygill would pay the coats Witness declined to pay the oats bi cause he conaldered he was not liable for them. Witness was not aware that th-> costa had been paid till a few days ago.—By Mr Stringer: Witness did not think he signed the order on Mr Cayglll and wrote on the sgreement to mortgage that he would not bear the cost of the preparation of the de?ds mentioned in that document [At thisitage the Court adjourned'for half an hour] On resuming the following evidence fras Mr CaygUi and the defendant oonrn ’ to him some time last year in connection with a land transaction the defendant had With Mr Grigg Witness believed Mr Qaygili had a letter »ett ng nut the terms open which Mr Grigg would let the defendant have the land Witness was witling t - * let the defendant have the tnoney, £4O, required by the letter to be paid. Witness was always prepared to carry ont the firms part of the engage meat, but he was never applied to for the £4O. Witness remembered Mr Parker and Mr Oayeill o tn -im eb--. pry las' 1 . Mr Parker inti mat d hat he had taken possession of t.e iauu. After some further conversation b was agreed that conditionally upon Magee giving an order witness’s firm wonld pay the sum of £55, being the amount of £4O and Interest accrued. Witness was willing to accept an order for bailiff’s costs, but subject to the firm’s prior claim, The order for £55 was presented soon after and paid, but no order for costs was presented. In conversation, Mr Parker ■aid to witness words to the effect that Mr Oayglll was a ” rofty” to pay or guarantee the sheriffs < ffioer’s costs without an order from Magee. Counsel on both aides addressed the Court, re Tiewlngtheevldencest considerable length. —■The claim for Interest accrued was abandoned by the plaint'ff.—a. lengthy argument t'O’i place with reference to whether the plaintiff should be nonsuited pn the grqnud that section 27 of the Law Practitfpnersl Act had not been complied wfth.-rT be Magistrate reserved his judgment till Friday, December 17, in order that be might have time to consider the legal point raised [Left sitting.]