MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1967, 11 October 1888, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

ASHBUKTOK- .'HURSDAY. (Before Mr C. A v'ray, K.M.) MAINTENANCE. o

The applfca ion of the police an order rat Issued s^ainet a man nsm d Lethaby to phow cause why he should n>< contribute towards the maintenance «f his son, an 'nno-» c of Rurnhatn. FAILING TO «B».Y AN ORDER OF THE COURT.

David Fl'7ge aid appeared m an>wer to a sammoQß, calling on him to ah' w oaose why be should not c fined fur disobeying an order of the Court— la reply to the Beooh the defendant said that tie did not know that ha w«« bound to Appear, and that he did not ra^aa any disrespect towards the Oonri. When he reonlvbd the second rub; osaa he was m oharge of ■ team of horses and told the bailiff that he would go {to Uourt after patting his hones up. When he had put up his horses he went 10 the Cou'thotne bat found the bnslness had been fioiehed— The Court called A.M. Pension, bailiff, who said that he served a sub; oaaa on Fitzgerald. He was m oharge of « team of horaes and laid that he would not outne Tendered him conduct moaey and ho itlll declined to come — By defendant : Defendant dH oot aay he could not come till ho had pbt op hU homes ; he said he would not borne— Defendant called Albert Roberts who said that after the Ooatt had sd jnurned be met Fhz?erald who stated 'hat he was going to the Ooart. Told him that be was too late, the <\mrt having adjourned — F, Dud son gave evidence as to statements made to him by defendant ■bowing that the latter Intended gotag to Court as soon as he had put the hones op — The M»glstru'.o snid (hat the oaie was one of grots contempt. The defendant had told the bailiff he would not come and the oaie had to proaeed without htm.. However, defendant seemed to have subsequently repented and the bench. would take this Into consideration. A. fine of 20a and costs, vrith the alternative of 48 hours' imprisonment was lufljoted, civr, case, J. Orr T Hlbbs Bros, olalm £18 11s 5d Mr Purnell for plaintiff, Mr Wilding for defendant. The following evidence was called: John Orr said that about the end of July he dissolved partnership with Mr Hardy with whom he had had a, business atMethven. Witness took over the business, whioh defendants agreed to buy. The terms of sale were £300 cash and bills for the balance extending over 12 months. The business was taken at a valuation. At the time of the sale witness ■aid there was an Insurance of £2500 on the stook, that it bad six months to run, Mr Hardy having told him so. Witness said he would make no charge for the policy m existence, bat when it expired Mr Hlbbi would have to insure the stock m witness's name and pay the premium Nothing was said as to how long the policy was to last, but In casaa of this aart the polloy was always taken cat for twelve months. The taking oat of polloles m ihls way was a common practice, and the purchaser always paid tha premiums, The first polloy fell due m January, and the arrangement was that when it fell due witness was to renew it and Hibba was to send him a cheque. Witness renewed it and applied to Hibba Bros, for payment, They replied that they had been given to understand that the polloy bad nine months to run, and they expeoted wltoess to keep It good fcr that time. Witness •gain wrote to Mr Hibbs and told him that what he bad said was that he thought the polioy had six months to run from stocktaking. Subsequently witness saw Mr -Jonathan Hibbs and told him m effect what was stated In the letter. Mr Hlbbs objected to witness hold'ng a policy for £2600 over bli stock when he only owed witness about half that amount. Witness ■aid that he did not want to bold security lot » gce&tec amount than was owing, to him, and he would apply to have the policy cancelled and one for half the amount made out. Mr Hlbbs agreed to this nnd wltneSß efiaoted the insurance at £1250, The last bill on account of the •ale of the business to Hibbs Bros, was paid on August SO, and witness then transferred the policy to them. On •everal occasions witness made application for £18 lls 5 1, money witness had paid on acoonnt of the policy, — The witness wai cross-examined at length by Mr Wild-ing.-—J as. Miller, olerk to Mr Orr, gave evldanoe. — Hngo Frledlander, gave evldenoe as to the custom m regard to insurance where a vendor held onendoraad bills from the purchaser. In such oases the purchaser would pay the premiums on the Insurance policy held by the vendor as •eourity. — This was the plaintiff's case, and Mr Wilding called Jonathan Hibbn, who said that when he was negotiating with the plaiutfff the latter said he would give witness the benefit of the Insurance polioy which had nine months < orun. Aeon*, cession was also made In regard to the rent and witness on these Inducements bought the business. No mention was made of Insurance being made m plaintiff's name, and witness understood the polioy was to be handed to him. When the bills were ilgned witness **ked for the polioy, but plalntlfl said that It was businesslike to hold the polloy till the bills were met. Witneu replied that It did not matter who held the polioy, so long as the goods were Insured. Subsequently witness received notice from the Colonial Insurance Co. that the polley had expired. Witness nferrtd them to Mr Orr. Shortly after this he got notfoe from Mr Orr that he had insured the stock In the Standard m Ills owd name and asking witness to pay the premiums. Witness replied that he had been given to understand the former lnsnrance had nine months to run, and ho expected Mr Orr to keep the stook insured for that time. The fair insurable value of the stock at the time witnets took it over was £1400 or £1600, and the polioy on it wai £2600. On New Year's day Mr Orr saw him m reference to Insurance. Witness told him that if he wanted to Iniuxe he woald have to do so at his own rltk. Mr Orr said that he had no security and witness replied that if he bad spoken •boat that previously he might have got the bills endorsed. —John Orr was recalled and denied that Mr Hlbbs had said to him that If he took out a polloy, it would be at hts own risk. AH that Mr Hibbs contended was that witness should keep the polloy going for nine months.— Counsel on both sides addressed the Ooart and the Magistrate reserved his decision till two o'olook. On the Court resuming the Magistrate said that from the evidence it appeared that there was an Implied oontraot that the interests oi the plaintiff should be seoared by an lnaoranee over the strck till the bills were paid. There was an insurance of £2501 over the stock and whloh had about six months to run at the time plaintiff disposed of the business, and It was agreed that defendant should have tbe benefit of thlf. When this policy expired plaintiff took out a new one for the same amount, but on consultation with the defendant, this was reduced to £1250, whioh covered the amount owing to plaintiff Under the oiroamstanoes the B&noh thought that plaintiff was only entitled to the premium paid oa the smaller portion, viz,, £15 4s Bd. Judgment woald be given for this •mount with costs. The Court then tote.