DISTRICT COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume II, Issue 509, 28 August 1871, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 1871

[Before Thoifias Beckham, Esq., District

Judge]

The usual bi-monthly sitting of the Court wns held yesterday, when the following business was disposed of :—

Jonx O'Q-roats Q-otn Mining Company V. Lasof.llks.—Mr. Rees appeared for the plaintiffs, Mr. Ucsketh for the defendant. — This wns an application to reinstate tho plaint on tho list of causes, and fix a i!ay for hearing. The cuso had been called tho previous Court day, when Mr. HeskeUi objected to the authority by which Mr. Rees appeared for the pluiuthTs, and consequently the Court directed n nonsuit. Tho authority produced by Mr. Bees was signed by two directors, but Mr. iloaketh contended that the authority of an "incorporated pluiutiff" could bo only under seal.—Mr. Rees ciled fcvcrul cases to show that no such formal authority was necessary ; that individual directors and managers entered upon lurgo transactions by authority of the company, but such authority was not necessarily under seal. It would bo absurd to require tho seal of tho company to every act that might bo necessary to bo done in the namo of the company.—Mr. Hesketh said the question was whether tho Court should abide by its own rule. The Court must sco that authority was neocesary_ to enablo v solicitor to* appear. Whoso authority ? That of the company: and for such, a purpose tbo seal ■was the authority.—His Honor would like to look into tho oase before giving judgment.— Judgmont deferred.

Deven v. DoEinfrEii.—Claim-£22 10s. 6d. —This was an action for- wages. The defendant denied that he was indebted, and set off several sums paid to plaintiff, but it was ruled that there could be no set-off against wages. It appeared, however, that plaintiff had given defendant credit for most of Ike c»ab received. The defendant, however, said that plaintiff did not work on tho last day for which he charged, and complained that the plaintiff took two horses, a waggon, nud a man from their work at road making, to convey his things into town. —The Court gave judgment for the plaintiff for £21 10s 6d. , ,j|

Watt t. Byrne.—Claim, £27 0s sd. This was ah action*-to recover for goods (limo and timber) sont for tho defendant's use to Maugawai. The defendant appeared to have some arrangement with a person named Cook, by which they were to quarry stone, and bring it to Auckland. . The plaintiff is a. timber merchant in Mephanics1 Bay. The defendant denied that any lime or timber had been sent to him. He only, knew that, that the cutter was to bring stone from Mangaw.ii. The plaintiff deposed .to despatching tlio iitue and limber. ,It appeared, however, that.most of the conversation relating to the supply of the goods was with Cook, and tho account was rendered to Cook. The defendant denied that there was aay partnership batween himself and Cook. The plaintiff deposed to a conversation with Byrne, who said, " that when they gob more stone out it would be all right." The defendant upon one occasion said he was responsible for £8, which he would pay. A witness, named Greenhill, clerk to plaintiff, deposed that the goods were put on board the Kathleen Borrodule, cutter, by order of Byrne and Cook, Mr. JLJyiMio to pay for them, "being the partner in town," but the witness would not swear to the exarct word?, but was positive the words used were "to-that effect." Mrs. Eliza Cook deposed to a partnership existing between her husband and the defendant, also to arrangements mn.de'*in. her presence that the limo and timber should be procured for the building of a certain bridge at Mangawai.—The defendant was recalled, and denied in a positive manner the evidence of G-reenhill and Mrs. Cook, in respect of the i partnership alleged. Cook might have under-

stood tliat defendant was a partner, but there was never any proper, partnership between them. The only partnership, according to the defendant, that ever existed -was a partnership in procuring flass for the New Zealand Insurance Company's building.— His Honor gave judgment for plaintiff.