RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Cromwell Argus, Volume IV, Issue 205, 14 October 1873, Page 7

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, October 10, 1873. (Before W. Laiayitce Simpson, Esq., 11.M.) W. Shanly was lined live shillings, and costs of Court, for allowing a chimney upon his premises to get on fire, and thereby causing a breach of the Municipal Ordinance. C. Cololouiih v. E. Murre li..—Claim of £ls, amount of dishonoured acceptance, drawn by E. Murrell, accepted by H. W. Smythies, and discounted by C. Colclough. Mr Colclough conducted his own case, and Mr F. J. Wilson, solicitor, appeared for defendant. The following is a summary of the evidence : Mr Colclonj.'!i. ■ being sworn, stated: Some time before 30r.1i September, 1872. I think about a month, Murrell asked me to discouut the acceptance in question. I gave him a cheque for £l3 for it ; and placed bill in the Bank for collection. On .September 30th, received notice of dishonour. Upon receiving that on the 30th, 1 went to Mnrrell's shop and showed it to him. Murrell suggested that I should serve notice on Smythies. Accordingly, I wrote two notices, oue to Smythies, and one to Murrell. I went to Mr Murrell about 10 o'clock next morning, and presented notice myself. Murrell said of course I was not to push him till I had tried to get the money from Smythies. I assented to that. Some time ago, I cannot be sure of the date, but about the half-yearly balance of the Bank of New South Wales, I pressed Murrell to pay the money into that Bank to my credit. He promised to do it. On inquiry, 1 found he had not done so. Went again to Murrell, and he promised acceptance at one month. I got a form, filled ic up, but saw from Mnrrell's hesitation he did not mean it. [ tore it up, and told him 1 would try another way- After summoning him. Mr Allanby, my solicitor, said Murrell would give half of amount to settle the matter. fn answer to Mr Wilson : There was no understanding that the cheque was not to be prei sented till Smythies had beenJsued. On the prei vious hearing, I said I could not say positively J when T notified dishonour ; now I can swear distinctly that I gave Murrell notice as I have I already described. Mr Allanby said Murrell [offered £7 10s. to cry quits. I sued Smythies |on the b'U. and obtained judgment a good while ago. Smythies promised to pay me several times. He gave Mr Fraer an order to pay £lO if any money was coming to him from Corporation. Smythies has not.paid me any money on i account of this bill.or anything else for a very I long time. 1 never saw order. ! J. A. Preslmv, Agent Bank New South I Wales, gave evidence that bill was sent in for collection on September 28th, 1872. It was dishonoured on 30th September. A letter notifying same wsis sent to Colclough on same date. To Mr Wilson : Mr Colclough's cheque for £l3 was paid on 25th November, 1872. G. Trons-m was called, but had no evidence I to sive in the matter. I This closed Mr Colclough's case. '< Mr Wilson made a few remarks to the effect I that no case had been made out which required j answering ; but the Bench thought it desirable that the case should proceed. E. Murrell, defendant, was then called, and I stated : I parted with the bill to Colclough bej fore it was due. 1 got cheque for £l3 for it conj ditionally that it should not be presented till j Colclough got judgment against Smythies, in the i event of Smvthies not meeting the bill. I kept ; cheque till judgment had been obtained. I first I heard of bill being dishonoured about ten days I after it was. I never leceived a wrilten notice. i When Colclough first told me of it it was in the j street near the Council Chamber. Marsh used j to ask every day whether I received notice of | dishonour. Some time ago Colclough came into i my shop and asked me to lend him £B, as his j account at the Bank was overdrawn. Ho also ' said Smythies had gone to Bannockburn to col- ! lect some money to pay him. If I had not the i money, Colclough was willing to take an acceptance at one month for £B. I did not answer him, and he went aWrty as if he were mad. He afterwards gave me an account for £l4. He explained it to mean £l3 for the dishonoured acceptance, and £1 for expenses incurred in suing Smythies. Mr Allanby asked me what I intended doing in the matter. T said, nothing. I afterwards offered to lend Colclough money on an 1.0.TJ., or some acknowledgement. Tn answer to Mr Colclough : You did ask me for the loan of money on the occasion spoken of. You never asked me before. I keep a diary of money matters. 1. never authorised Allanby to say I would pay half the amount to have no further bother with it. I told him I would lend yon £7. 1 would do nothing in the matter of the account. To the Bench : The bill was known to several. Mr Marsh knew of it. It was anticipated that j it would be dishonoured. Mr Colclough told j me two or three months ago that he had rei ceived an order on Mr Fraer for £lO from SinyI thies. i J. Marsh give evidence as follows : Was not I certain he hail :jeen the bill ; knew of it though. Murrell wanted him to take it ; he had refused. He had seen Colclough's cheque for £l3. A day or two after the bill was due, he asked Murrell whether he had received notice of dishonour. j He asked the aamo several day 3 in succession. Murrell said he had Hot. - lu answer ly Mr

Colclough: He didn't know that the bill was dishonoured.—To the Bench :He assumed that the bill would be dishonoured. Mr Wilson said he thought the evidence w\n quite sufficient to justify him in saving the time of the Court by saying nothing upon the case. He would leave it entirely to the Bench. In summing up, his Worship, amongst other things, dealt upon the mystery which appeared to surround the case. Nobody appeared to know how the debt had been incurred, and yet the bill appeared to be a matter of public notoriety. Mr Colclough again had sworn to giving due and timely notice of dishonour, whereas Mr Murrell swore that he had not received such notice. There was thus one oath to place against another. Mr Colclough Iml neglected his case, at least so it appeared to him. Why hadn't he brought forward Smythies to strengthen his own evidence in re. the notice ; and Mr Ffaer in the matter of the order for £lO ? Me had been altogether silent on the subject of the conditions upon which the cheque was given, and he hadn't even taken the trouble to subpoena Murrell to produce the notice of dishonour. There was altogether too much mystery about the affair. Judgment would be for defendant, with costs. J. Barker v. A. H. Jaooar & Co.—£2 10s., for water supplied for brewery purposes. Judgment for amount. D. A. Jolly & Co. v. W. Hill.—£ls. Amount was paid into Court. Messrs Stuart and Batten's application for a slaughtering license was granted.—A similar license was granted to E. Thomson, Nevis.