LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 838, 9 June 1910, Page 9

LAW REPORTS.

« WHOSE DEBT? LADIES VISIT A WAREHOUSE. ACCOUNT DISPUTED. An interesting case, involving a claim for payment of nil account, was hoard yesterday in the Supreme Court, before the Chief justice (Sir Robert Stout), the parlies to the action being Sargood, Son and Eu-en, -Ltd. (plaintiffs), and Mrs. Belle Bradlee (defendant). The ease had been removed by defendant from the Magistrate's . Court. Mr. A. Blair appeared for the plaintiff firm, and Mr. T. M. Wilford for defendant. In opening the case for plaintiffs, Mr'. Blair mentioned that the claim was for .£lls 125., for goods supplied for tho stocking ot a store at Manakaii. Tl)o defendant, Mrs. Bradlee, accompanied by a Mrs. Hargrcaves, and' Sir. S. J. Beattie, had called at Messrs. Sargood's warehouse, and had arranged to open an account. It was represented to the firm that Mrs. Bradlee was putting Mrs. Hargrcaves'into'a business at Maitakau, which business had formerly been carried on by a Mrs. Breezo. Mr.- Beattie had represented also that Mrs. Bradlee would be responsible for payment for goods, and Mrs. Bradlee herself had confirmed that statement. Sho had alio, on the firm's request, signed a guarantee for .£SO.

Mr. Wilford: We admit liability for that amount,' and have paid .£SO into Court. ,

A sum of about .£7O was paid, continued 3lr. Blair, the cheque being signed by Beattie. Ultimately the business was taken over by Mr. Beattie, and the defendant now alleged that tho business had'-been Beatties. all along. This, however, was inconsistent with what was stated at the first .interview at tho warehouse.

Carlyle Beatson Robertson, accountant at Sargood's, was tho first witness. Ho stated that Mrs. Bradlee, -Mrs. Hargreaves, and , Mr. Beattie had informed him that Mrs. Bradlee had bought out" tho business carried on by Mrs. Breezo at Manakau, and was.putting Mrs. Hargreaves into it. It was also explained that goods to the value of .£SO would be required, and that Mrs. Bradlee would be responsible for payment. After inquiries had been made as to Mrs. Bradlee's financial position, the business was allowed to proceed. Mrs. Bradlee had informed witness that Johnston and Co. were her agents, and goods were supplied for some months. The only payment made was by a cheque for .670, signed "S. J. Beattie." Subsequently, Mr. Beattie, on being interviewed, remarked: "All that I am responsible'for is the ,£SO that I guaranteed." Witness replied: "We have no guarantee from you. It is from Mrs. Bradlee." i Beattie answered, "It is x the same thing; I am Mrs. Brndleo's agent. If you like 'to hand me over • the guarantee now, I will give you a cheque for- .£50." Beattie further stated that he could not be responsible for . the balance of the account. When asked on what authority,' he had taken. over the business and sold the- assets, Beattie stated that the .business'was his, as agent for Mrs. Bradlee. .

>In cross-examination, witness said that the action was brought on behalf of other firms also, who had supplied goods for the business. His principals had taken action first,'arid would have gone,on independentl;., but other firms had joined them later. He knew that .Beattie had been sued in the Otaki' Court as owner of the business, had been brought up on a judgment summons, and had been ordered to pay an amount claimed or go to gaol. /. ' . : *

William Alexander Caminer, manager for P. Itayman arid Co., gave particulars of an interview which he* had had with Mrs. Bradlee and Mr. Beattie. In that interview he had been led to. believe that Mrs. Bradlee was putting Mrs. Hargreaves into the storo because the.latter was without meana.

On being assured of Mrs. Bradlee's financial stability, he directed that goods should be supplied, but the firm would not have supplied goods to Mrs. Hargreaves."

Mr. Wilford, summarising the defendant's case, stated that liability was denied for any sum beyond the ,£SO guaranteed. The position was that Beattie, who was Mrs. Bradlee's manager, had asked her to advance him money sufficient to put Mrs. . Hargreaves into business. Mrs. Bradlee agreed, and paid Beattie the sums of .£l9l 10s; lOd. and .£150,. receiving two demand notes from him. She further arranged to take £5 per month out of Beattie's salary as manager in repayment- ofthe amounts, advanced, This was an attempt, said Mr, Wilford, to get Beattie's estate to pay- 20s. in J!,-' by getting Mrs. Bradlee to "foot the bill."

Stanley James. Beattie, manager of Mrs. Bradley's farm at Manakau, after refers irig to the above-mentioned advances, went on to say that the business was his, ■ and Mrs. Bradlee had, no power 1 to interfere in its management. A letter to Sargood's, offering ,the businoss for sale, and signed "S. J. Beattie, for B. Bradlee," was explained by witness ns having been written by him without reference to Mrs. Bradlee. It was his custom, he said, to sign all letters as manager for Mrs. Bradlee. The defendant Isabella Bradlee gave similar evidence regarding.financial arrangements. She added that she had nothing to do with the store, and Mr. Beattio had no authority to write letters in her name in connection with the business. As Mr. Beattie hadbeen a good manager on the farm, she had done him a good turn, asking for no interest. Having heard the argument of. counsel, his Honour reserved judgment. RENTAL'OF A DAIRY FARM. , MUCH LITIGATION.. As a sequel to a case which went to the Privy • Council; -Reginald Palmar Urevillc and Mrs. Mary Jolly Edwards proceeded yesterday against Crespln Parker, dairy farmer, ■ of'Haywards, for tho use and occupation.of a iarm known as, Hayward's Estate, consisting of 203 aeres. Tho case, was heard by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout). Mr. D. M. .Findlay appeared for (ho plaintiffs, and Mr. H. K. Johnston for tho defendant. During the hearing'of tho case, it was stated that tho property was owned by the plaintiffs as trustees. In March, 1008, tho defendant's term (nine years) as lessco of tho farm had expired, but he had since been "holding over" tho property. The lease contained a covenant for renewal for a period of 10 years, but the plaintiffs refused to. grant a renewal on the ground that the defendant did not comply with tho provisions of tho lease binding him as tenant. During 1908, Parker brought. an action against tho trustees, before Mr. Justice Chapman, claiming specific performance of tho covenant for, renewal; and it was held that he,was not entitled to a renewal, on the grounds alleged by the plaintiffs.. Parker then appealed to the Court of Appeal from this decision, and Mr. Justice Chapman's judgment was reversed on legal 'grounds, the Higher Court holding that tho tenant should be compelled to pay damages, to be by the Supreme Court, and that, subject to payment of damages, he was entitled to a renewal. The trustees appealed to tho Privy Council, which Court held that the decision of the Court of \npeal was wrong, and reaffirmed tho judgment of Mr. Justice Chapman. The present action Was begun by the trustees before the appeal .had been made to the Court of Appeal in the previous en«e and claim was now madc-.by tho trustees tor possession of the farm, and for mesne profits, in lien of rent. The plaintiffs claimed for rent from March 0 1908, at the rate 'of 12s. Gd: per U27i'—the original rental being Gs. per acre.

His Honour asked if it was not possible for the parties to agree. Mr. Findlay: I am afraid not.

Mr. Johnston: Wo are perfectly willing to come to an agreement. Tho rent before was ,£7O per annum, and wo are quite- willing to pay that, less an amount for part ot tlin farm taken by tho Government.

Counsel remarked further that, even if his client, Parker, were forced into bankruptcy, he was justified in endeavouring to prevent judgment for the larger sum being given against him.

His Honour,. after hearing evidence, expressed the opinion that tho land could not pay £271, but he would reserve his decision until Saturday or Monday. MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Before Mr. W. G. Eiddell, S.M.) THE "LEADER" PICTURE. A THIRD REMAND GRANTED. A further remand to Wednesday next was granted in the eases of Francis Edwin Tier and Michael Tier, charged with (he theft of "The Leader" picture from the Art Gallery. When Chief Defective Broberg made tho application for thu further remand, Mr. W. Cracroft Wilson, who appeared for the accused, said, that he must enter a strong protest against another remand. This would be the third occasion on which the accused had been remanded. It was not usual for a solicitor to oppose an application of the kind made by' tho police, but a hardship was imposed on the accused, who were losing their wages in the. meantime. He thought the police should at least give a reason for the application. . • Chief Detectiva Broberg said tho reason for the application was that the case was not completed, and the witnesses were not present. Therefore, the police were not prepared to go on. His Worship, in granting the remand, stated that he did not think that tho delay was prejudicing the accused in any way. They were both out on bail. He did not, however, believe in continual remands. Tho Chief Detective: "No. further remand will be necessary, your Worship." Bail was allowed in* the sum of ,£l5O, and one surety of .£l5O, in each case. THE RESTAURANT AFFRAY. ■ FINE OF ,€lO IMPOSED. When tho case of William H. Shepherd was called on, Sub-Inspector Norwood asked that the charge originally preferred against accused should bo reduced to one of common assault' instead of assault, causing grievous bodily harm, as it stood when accused appeared on Monday. It had been found that the assault was not as serious as at first believed. Accused was consequently charged with having on Saturday last unlawfully assaulted one Mary Notlih. ; - ' . Mr. Herdman appeared for Shepherd, who pleaded not guilty. i Evidence was given' by Constable M'Kelvic that he was called to the Clyde Restaurant on Saturday evening, and found Mrs. Notlin suffering from a wound on tho lop of the head. Witness asked her how she had unstained the injuij, and sho pointed to accused, stating that he did it. Witness then interrogated Shepherd concerning the matter, but received no reply. The fragments of u water jug were lying.on tho floor, ami accused at the time. was.apparently under the inlluence of drink. Dr. Gilmer, who was summoned to treat the case, ordered the removal of the woman to the hospital. Corroborative evidence v>;as given by Constablo Quaylc. Mary Notlin stated that she had had a few words with Shepherd, accusing him of being intoxicated, and, subsequently, she struck him with a slipper. She did not know how she sustained tho wound which formed the subject of the charge. Sho did not cry out "Murder," but called for the police, as she was frightened. To Mr. Herdman: She must have fallen against something when she fainted. She did not blame defendant for having ing struck her, and she never had done

so. Ee-examincd by the Sub-Inspector: She was going out ot ths room in which sho had left Shepherd when slic was struck. jt was dark at tho time. Cyril W.' J. .Day, photographer, ■ residing next to the restaurant, stated that he was coming along to his shop when ho heard Mrs. Notlin screaming "murder." Dr. Gilmer detailed the nature of tho injury inflicted, and added that during the examination Mrs. Notlin ■ fainted three times. As she appeared to be in a state of collapse, witness ordered her removal to. the hospital. Tho only witness called' for the defence was Chas. Woods, a boarder in Shepherd's house. He stated that he came home with defendant, and angry words ensued between Shepherd and Mrs. Notlin. Subsequently Shepherd was struck by something, but ho did not see anyone strike Mrs. Notlin. Shepherd threw tho bedroom jug on the floor in vexation after ho had been struck. Mrs. Notlin was not then injured, A little later, however, ho heard a fall, accompanied by a scream. His-Worship said, that although the evidence was not very clear, it was sufficient to con vines . him that defendant did cpmmit tho assault.' Tt' was u cowardly assault, and defendant would be convicted', and 'fined ,£lO, and costs ,£1 95., in default one month's imprisonment.

A BELLICOSE NEW ■ ARRIVAL. A new arrival from abroad, a young man named Yeative Roue Malialieu, pleaded guilty (1) to insobriety, and (2) to having unlawfully assaulted ono John Sidfo'rd.

According to the .statement made by Sub-Inspector Norwood, accused boarded a tram-car at the Duke' of Edinburgh Hotel, at 10 o'clock on Tuesday night, and got into the same compartment as informant. He demanded that Mr. Sid--ford should pay his (defendant's) fare, but the 'demand was not complied with, Mr., Sidford objecting ■ that he did not know the defendant, and had no intention of paying for him. When the conductor emtio. round, accused could not pay his fare, and ho asked that iho cai should be pulled up, as he would have to get out, and just as he was getting out of tho car, ho struck Mr. Sidford a violent blow on tho nose. On tho first charge accused was convicted and discharged, and on the second it sentence of seven days' imprisonment was entered. CASE OF DON HOU. - Don Hon, a Chinese fruiterer, who sometimes acts as - interpreter, Was charged with having assaulted a little girl under the ago of 12 years. After hearing evidence at length, accused pleaded not guilty, and was' committed to the Supreme Court for trial. Bail was allowed in the sum of ,£BO, and ono surety of £Sa. Mr. Fitzgibbon appeared -for accused. THE FALKINEE CASES. A further remand to Juno 15 was granted in the case of Edward J. Falkiner, charged (1) ■ that on August 1, contrary to his duty, he dia open a postal packet sent from Auckland and addressed to Louisa Robertson; (2) on August 1, by means of false pretences and instruments ho did induce a certain post office officer to deliver a postal packet not intended for Falkiner being a packet addressed to Louisa Robertson. Mr. W. H. D. Bell appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Dunn for accused. INSOBRIETY. Richatd Evans pleaded guilty to a charge of drunkenness, and was sentenced to- 21 days' imprisonment.