DISTRICT COURT.-Monday.

Auckland Star, Volume II, Issue 533, 25 September 1871, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.-Monday.

[Before Thomas Beckhatn, Esq., District ; Judge.]. Thb- adjourned foctniglifcly " sittin^of this, Court was held this morning, when the following business wns'.disposed of:— / Judgment forPla.l tiffs. —Bell Brothers t. J. S. Rice, £73 18s 6s ; Hampton r. Tillotsou, £515s 6d. Adjottqned.—Lascefles v. Todd, PrenderRajt v. Todd, Lewis v. Fitzgerald, Nathan and Co. v. Le Roy, Swanson v. Ferguson. Dtr Moulin and Clauk t. ITeneiques.— fhis case was tried the previous Court day, and the plaintiffs were nonsui'ed. The case was now tried before a jury of fouv,cmpanhelled in conformity with the provisions of the District Court Act. The evidence given at the former hearing was published at the time. — Mr. James Russell appeared for the plaintiff: Mr. Beveridge and Mr. Hesketh for the defendants. The facts may be bi'iefly stated as follows :—The plaintiffs, who are sharebvokera, said that; in May, 1871, the defendant came to their office and instructed them to purchase on his account 25 shares in the Cure Gold -Mining Company. The defendant himself stated the price he was pre pared to give> namely, 25s each. The plaintiffs bought the required number of shares from Mr: Warwick Weston. Plaintiffs paid £315s for the shares, and this sum'they now sought to recover. In the course of the examination it wag elicited that tlio market raluaof these shares increased from 25s to 355, but the plaintiffs said that in the absence of the defendant, who had gone to Melbourne, and not hav^nj^ instructions, they did not feel at liberty tijsel^ The .market viijluo had slrice declined frj>m r&ss to 3s.—TLie. defence was that this was a aharebroking transaction, and must be decided, according to : the usages of sharebroking business, ihe defendant said that he did not buy these shares as a principal, but merely as a broker. The plaintiffs, lie said, knew this, and when he went to Melbourne, the shares having risen 10s each in value, the plaintiffs might havoisold them at a very considerable ' profit. The defendant, denied that lie was responsible for the loss of the plaintiffs, which was occasioned wholly by their neglect.-—Mr. J. P. DuMoulin deposed that the' defendant purchased the shares as for himself. No third person was mentioned at the time, although subsequently, when defendant was asked for the money, lie said ho was " waiting to got the cheque from the Thames." W-h'en defendant went to Melbourne ho never left with the plaintiffs any instructions, liQr oven intimated that ho wiis going away. They "knew nothing of his having gono away until they' saw his r.amo in the newspapers.—The dofendant, in his examination, deposed that he was a sharebrokor; that he went to the, plaintiffs as a eharebroker. They knew he tras acting as a sharebroker, mid when ho was away they wpro wholly at liberty to sell the shares if they had so pleased. The defondoiit said he told ■ the plaintiffs be wanted the shares, for .a client; but the plaintiffs denied this, and said they looked to the defendant only for the money, and knew nothing of, and would not have anything to do with, a client of tho defendant. —Mr. Beteridge cross-examined the plaintiff as to the nature of the transfer that was given with the shares purchased from Mr. Wesfcon. Ho said it was signed by " lliohard Garlick," not by " Warwick Weston." It had not a purchaser's signature.,; As to whether the tratwfor was " stamped, .tbo.Jieller was not obliged to stamp the transfer. .Plaintiff was sure the name of the company wad upon the transfer, and that it was complete. Tho defcndivnt did not tell the plaintiffs, that " his party" wa9 supplied with share? from another quarter until the fourth day afterwards. Tho plaintiff felt very uncomfortable while defendant was away, as he felt ho couid not dispose of the shares, nnd would be liablo to Mr. Honriques, who ho heard was coming back to Auckland.—Mr. J. P. Clarke, partner of tho firm of Dv -Moulin and Clarke, repeated the evidence he guvo at, tho former trial, and corroborated tho statement of Mr. Dv Moulin in all tho material facts.