MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1950, 21 September 1888, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

ASHBURTON— THURSDAY. (Before Mr O, A Wray, R.M.) CIVIL QAS&H. D. Thomas vD. flick. claim £8 Mr Wilding for plaintiff, Mr Holmes for defendant -This caso had been partly heard at the previous Court day. — Mr Wilding called the following ovidence : C J. Harper enid ho had been the owner of the sheep m quea ion. Sold them to Mr Brick Hrard the latter go to Mr • Thomas and tel him he could eel I the sheep at a profit. — By Mr Holmes : Did not know what the pr fit was. Mr ihomas did not oome up while witness waa bargaining with Brick, and say he could gei 9a 4d for thorn. When wi neai was dealing with Brick the latter said he would only have taken ICO at 9a 4d — T. M. Jones la^v Brick, Taylor, and Thomas stnnding together. Heard Brick tell Thomas the price of the eh'op was 9a 51, and Taylor bore him out. —By Mr Holmeo: Was o servant of Mr Thomas. The conversation was after the Bale from Brick to Taylor They aaid the sale wai at 9s 5d — Th'a waß the pleiotifE's case. Mr Holmes stated Ihe cane for the defendant. He said th it defendant would prove that he never employed Mr Thomas at all, that when Mr Thomas came to Mr Briok, the latter said he would not Bell under 9s 6d, and a'so that Mr Thorn jb had nothing to do with the negotiations that led to the re-sale of sheep to Mr Tay'or He oalled, Daniel Brick, wbo said that on Angust 28 he bought the sheep In qwtbn from Mr Qarper. JMc Thonna did not coma up while he wa* negotiating with Mr Harper. iVTr Thnmaa did not aav to wltnea*, or to Mr Harper In witness' preseno , that he ooald get 9j 41. About twenty minutes after wltneaa had purchased the sheep and had taken delivery, Mr Thomas came up and aaid that ho had Bold the sheep. Witieaaroplird that he had jast bought them Thomas Bald that ho Had an offer of 9i 4(3 and the offer stood good. Witness said he would take 93 61 and no less. Did not authorise Thomts to soli the aheep. Mr Thomas then went away, j Got an order to take the Bbeep out of the yard. Mr Thomaß oame to witness and ea'd he could get 9« 51 ; Ik w»a not true that he pointed out Mr Taylor a> the man who would give 9* 51 nor was it true that witness went after Mr Taylor to get him to buy the aheep, Taylor came to witneßß about tha fheep, and witnesß said them to him for 9j 5d per bead and £1 over. After the sale saw Mr Thomas. Told Thomas that the sheep had been sold for 9 5i and £1 over. Subsequently a;ked Thoaias whether he woald take witness' cheque or Mr Taylor's oheque and refund witness' pr, fit, £15 2j 63. Mr Thomas said he wou'.d take Mr Taylor's ohequ?. Handed Taylor the order for thb aheep. Me Thoims eald noth ng about commission then. Saw him again In the evening about paying to witness the profit and ha said nothing about commission then; On the previous week had bought sheep from Mr Thomas and sold them the same day to Mr •Ptandish. Told Mr Thomas' clerk to book the sheep to Mr Standish. This waa done, Mr Slnndiah'e oheque accepted, and witness paid his profit without any deduction for commission. On the 6th witness learned for the first time he was to be charged commission . On the 8 h saw Thomas and asked him j why commission was charged. He replied that if he did not oharge commission he ' would be liable to a penalty. Mr Thomas was present when tho fint statement of account, charging half commission, was, ha dad to him. r-'ome hot words p Ssed between witness and Mr Thomas. Mr Thomas served witness with a summons, and Mr Curtis came to witness to get it back again. Witness read it all through and sa : d thqt if it vr&n taken back he con-. Bidered himself released of nil liabi'ity. By Mr Wilding: Had known Tayloi previous'y, but did not recognise him on the morn.ing of the sale. Did not authorise Me Thomas to sell the sheep on his account at any price. Asked him if he would take witness' chpqae or Taylor's cheque and refund witneEß his profit. Mr Thomas accepted Taylor's oheque Witness bid 9) 5d for the sbeep Mr Thomas never spoke to witness and Mr Taylor till after the sale to the latter By Mr Homes: Bid 9a 5d with the intention of taking 200;— By Mr Wilding : Had aaked Mr Garth' opinion sb to selling the sheon. If Taylor's oheque had bgfcn, dishonored would not have looted to Thomas for paymQqt,-~-At this stage the Court adjourned for lunch. On resuming Mr Holmes recalled Mr Jones. In roply to a question he said that he did not remember Mr Brick asking him to glva him a hand to take, tho aheep home.— F. MoOafferty, farmer near Lmrlstoo, was In the yards on the day when Mr Briok - boaght the aheep. Was with him when he waa going to take the cheep away. Was going to assist him, and was holding bia horae while Mr Briok went for the order. Previous to his holding the horses, Mr Thomaa a.nd Mr Briok had a conversation. Mr- Thorn/ 1 » said that Mr Brick ought to sell, and the latter said that he would not sell nnder 9a 63. It waa about two minutes after this conversation that witness saw Taylor— By Mr Wilding : Saw Thomas and Brick subsequently engaged m conversation . The three m.e.n. from QerMdlne were together a> tfce a Up. -By Mr Holmeß : Beard Briok isk Jones to help h(m over the bridge with thefiheep. The latter ea ; d it " never rained but it poured" aa ha had two or three joba offered already. — Robert Taylor, stook owoar at Geraldloe, aaid th^t Thomaa did not tell him about Brick having she** to aell, firlok did not oonae to witneae. He saw Briak with the sheep and went to him. Had a conversation with him, which led to the sale to witness of the sheep Knew Webster : ha w*a not thcxe that day. By Mr Wilding : Had no conversation with Me Thomas about the snoop, Did not bid at tho sale. Believed Mr Mo Donald bid for the sfreop, but did not hear him do so. Mr McDonald was bidding on witness'? behalf, and witness authorised him to^bld 9b sd. Saw Mr Tbotpas and Mr McDonald fn conversation prior to witness purchasing the qheep from Brick. Wrote a lette* t» Mr Thomaa, m which regarded ]\|r Thomaa as Mr Briok> agent. Settled up the matter with Mr Thorn-fa, paying the cheque to him — By Mr Holmes : Did not reoolleob Me Brick asking Mr Tho anas whether he would take witness/a or hla (Brlck'a) oheque. Mr Briok tol4 him. to pay Mr Thomas Ills (witnessed) cheque. — By the Court : Witaesa bought the sheep from Brick without any intervention from Mr Thomas, The matter w^s settled entirely between witness and Mr Briok knowing what Mr McDonald bad offered. He did not know if anything had been done on his bebalf by Me MoDonald, Mr Mo)onald had a conversation with Mr , Thomas and came to witness saying that 93 6d waa wanted WHneaa a^ked to split the diffdienaa, making it 9j 53, and he then went and made the deal with Mr Briok. He bought from Mr Briok, not having succeeded In making a purohase from Mr Thomas through his agent, Mr MoDonald. — Oounael QQ both sldeo Addressed tho Qpupt at aome leoßtb.— The Magistrate reserved his decision. G. J. F. Lublow v Bank of Australasia, olalm £7 18 j Id, Case adjourned for a wo?k. CTnion Fire and Marine Inturanoa Company v John Pearson. —Mr Outhbertaon for platutiffs,— This was an application for s writ of ejectment, the. plalntifia being mortgagees of property occupied by defendant who had paldnothlng m reipeot of pr4no|pa.l or Interoat since 1884. Defen. a»nt applied for time to be allowed to ftotWi complaining h 0 fe^ riW l T «d U

proper noMce. An adjournment wa granted for a fonuight m order to allow lha defendant time to remove. The O- urt then rose.

FRlDAY— Septembsr 21. (Bafore M-ijw Steward, J. P.) DBUNKENHEBS. Patrick MoHanagh, aliia MoGinn, alht MoGill waa charged with thia oflfoaoe. k memorandam of aeve~al pravloui convlot'ois waa handed mby the poliaa. Aa prleouer, howevor, bad not been befora the Oooit anoe J«nu-»ry r IBB7, he waa let off with a fiae of 10j, with tha alternative of24honM. J >hn Daman pleaded guilty t) the aaoae oharge, and w»a fined 5s or 24 honrr.