Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

LAW REPORTS.

* SUPREME COURT. "PLAYING ONE OFF AGAINST THE OTHER," CLAIM AND COUNTER-CLAIM. The c?.se of George, Doughty and. Co., of Wellington, merchants, v. William Henry Nash, of Wellington, leather merchant, a claim of <£376 'is. on two promissory notes, was further heard uy Mr. Justice Cooper yesterday. Olio of the notes sued on was dated April 2G, 1910, and was due on August 2, 11U0. It was for JBIBG 13.?. 3d., and was given by defendant to G. Hunt. The other, which was, for the same amount and between the same parties, was April 13, and due on August 10. Mr. F. G. Dalzioll appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. C. B. Morison for the defendant. In the case for the defence as outlined by Mr. Morison, and supported 'by evidence, it was admitted that Nash gave the two promissory notes to Granville Hunt, and < that the latter endorsed them to the plaintiffs, but. he alleged that the plaintiffs 'knew at the limo that these and other notes had been given by the defendant to Hunt as in payment for shipments of leather, which, according to a course of business between, the defendant and Hunt, of which the' plaintiffs were aware and had notice, Hunt front time to time .imported and delivered to defendant. On June 15 (defendants further alleged) the plaintiffs received from Hunt the bill of lading in respect of a shipment of leather ox steamer Indradevi and paid ou his behalf the bill.of exchange, drawn by the consignors, and that when the* plaintiffs did so they had had notice that Hunt had already sold the shipment to defendant, and that the promissory, notes, sued on covered the prico of the shipment. The plaintiffs delivered .£55 worth of the shipment to the defendant, out of the total of .£339. The defendant, therefore, contended . that the plaintiffs were in no better uosition than Hunt would havo been had", he retained the promissory notes and. received- the goods, and that to the extent, of the value of the part of the ; shipment which they had refused to deliver 'to the defendant they were not entitled to recover ou the notes. The defendant had paid the plaintiffs ,£9l' ISs. in respect of the difference between' the invoice price of the goods which they, had refused to deliver and the amount, of their claim in respect of the promissory nptes. -'The defendant counter-claimed £300 as damages in respect, of the non-delivjry to him of the major portion of the shipment of leather. .

Mr. Dalzioll, in opening for the plaintiff, said that he understood that the ne« tendant did not now rely on the defence he had . tiled to the claim. Hi* Honour said Mr. Morison had quite clearly admitted that the defendant was liable to pay on the promissory notes, but had urged that he was entitled, as a ret-off against that liability, to the value of the leather. There must be judgment for the plaintiffs on the claim. Tho coun-ter-claim remained.in dispute. Mr. Morison said the statement of defence and the counter-claim depended to some extent on each other. Mr.- Dalzioll said tho ease for the plaintiffs was that George, Doughty and Co. bought the goods by purchas-jng the shipping document without any notice, of any ■ equity in Nash, or anybody else. Early in March Hunt went to plaintiffs and suggested that, as he was finding difficulty in fina nciiig some of-his shipments, they might help him, afioriri!,' to hnlvo his commission with them. Tho understanding was that as a shipment arrived, Hunt .should produco good trading bills, and the firm; would advance against these, and not against shipoing documents. \ "

His Honour remarked a little later that Hunt was certainly a successful rogue— he was gains say a capable rogue. lie got money from Nash and George, Doughty and Co., playing one off against the. other. He got Customs duty from Nash, put it in his pocket; and represented to George, Doughty and Co. that Nash had to pay the.duty. Then he got a promissory note for ,£136 from Nash on .representing that it' was to tako the place of a promissory note which ha,d been destroyed—but which ' was not destroyed— and discounted two promissory notes (one of which, had been, obtained by fraud) with George, Doughty And Co." It was not at all surprising that lie'cleared out from Now Zealand. Mr. Da'ziell: The wonder is that he did not go sooner. Mr. Morison elicited from a witness undor cross-examination the statement that Hunt professed to be a religious man. Gn liis Honour questioning the relevancy of this item of evidence, Mr; Morison said: "The business man's experience is tlmt .the worst rogue to (leal with"is. the rogue who professes religion." His Honour replied that lie woijl'd be sorrj;'to say that a man who professed religion must therefore be subjected ;of being, n rogue. Mr. Morison said his remark had nothing to do with the really religious. ■ His Honour agreed that a rogue who professes to be religious becomes thereby a worse rogue. Mr. Dalziell. in his closing address, submitted that his clients had acted in perfect good faith, a"nd had had no notice, and nothing that amounted to constructive notice,- of a sale of the whole shipment to Nash. They had naturally been led to believe that Nash'had only bought two bales. In order to get possession of the goods they had to-pay for them. The position was not that George, Doughty and Co. were making ■ advances against the shipment. His Honour said the case was an important one. He would hear counsel further on questions of fact at 9.30 a.m. on. Saturday, and if they afterwards wished to address him on questions of law a later dale could bo fixed for the purpose.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) THE POLICE LIST.. Mr. C. H. Nixon, Collector of Customs, proceeded against .Tames Harvey under Section 23G of the Customs Law Act of 1908 for harbouring certain jewellery valued at ,£6. Defendant pleaded guilty, and was fined ,£lB, three times the value of the jewellery. His Worship subsequently reduced the line to .£5, in default seven days' imprisonment. Two men, named George Allen, and William Havden, apparently anticipating the approach of the Christmas festivities, recently raided a flock of seese belonging to Mr. Georgo Hudson, Northland. They were arrested by Detective Hammond, and charged with the offence yesterday. Haydon received fourteen days' imprisonment, and Allen-was ordered to pay 7s. Cd., value of the goose, and witnesses expenses 65., and a tine of 205., or to undergo seven days' detention. Charges against Henry Grell and Percival George Hester of breaking and entering the City Buffet Hotel and stealing seven bottles of liquor valued at 355. were heard. Accused pleaded guilty, arid were committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. •A seaman belonging.to s.s. Rotorua, who refused to "turn to" when ordered to do so by the chief officer (Mr. A. E. Dunn) incurred a penalty of 405., in default 48 hours' detention. He was ordered to be placed on board tlie vessel when she sails. '•.John Smyth Mitchell was remanded until December 19 on' a charge of stealing, at Titahi, a sum of JC7, belonging to Berlruml Robert Donaldson. Stephen Hansen and Frank Brown were charged with disorderly behaviour wliilo drunk, and with resisting the police. Hansen incurred a line 405.. and witnesses' expenses 125., in default 14 days' imprisonment. Jlrowu received a sentence ot 14 days' detention. Two stowaways'found on the s.s. Ulimaron after the. vessel had left Sydney for Wellington were cach fined,t4, the amount of.'fare,'.in default 21 days' in prison. The magistrate ordered tin? money, wlien. rccovercd, b be handed over to llio HmUlart Parker Company. Frederick Lyncss, with 91! previous convictions, was convicted and discharged for drunkomiess. On a charge of being a rogue and a vagabond be was sentenced to oiie year's imprisonment. Mary. Wilson, on a charge of drunkenness. was convicted and ordered to coino up f;>r sentence when called o;i. For a breach of a prohibition order she was fined 40s.,'in default seven days in gaol. Two first offenders were dealt with in the usual manner.

CIVIL BUSINESS. (Before Dr. M'Arttiur, S.M.) ■ "EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE." Dr. M'Arthur delivered judgment yesterday in the ease of Knight v. Martin. Plaintiff claimed .£lO, value of a bridle and saddle and a quantity of horse gear, and <£6 alleged to have been received by defendant on behalf of plaintiff and wrongfully detained by him. His Worship held that this was a case to which an equity and good conscicnce clause was eminently applicable. The fact that defendant had wrongfully detained money, received on behalf of accused, was fulH-ci-cnt to throw doubt upon his evidence regarding the gear. lie gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount,claimcd, with the usual costs. Mr. .luckscu appeared for plaintiff and Mr. Machcll represented defendant. 'HOUSES, STABLING, AND A CAli. Further evidence was heard on the claim of Richard Patrick Flanagan for c£ls 18s. 4d. against Thomas Patrick Lyons, cab proprietor, of Wellington, and a counter-claim of defendant for: (1) <£10 profit on horses purchased by plaintiff while in the employ of defendant and retained by plaintiff as his own property; (2) JIM, stabling and keep ot horses for seven days; (3) *£30, profit on tho salo of a, cab by plaintiff while in the service of defendant. The case was adjourned till December 31. In an alternative action, defendant also chimed the amounts stated as damages for alleged breach of contract. , THE BAKERS' AWARD. Mr. C. E. • Aldridge,. Inspector of ■Awards, _ instituted proceedings- against C. Williams for employing a nonunionist baker while a unionist was available.. Mr. Blair appeared for de* fendant, who pleaded not guilty. After hearing evidence of the secretary of the union, his Worship imposed a penalty of &'2. UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment by default was given for plaintiff in the 'following undefended cases:—S. Philp v. George Smart, ,£1 13s. Sd., costs 10s.; C. M. Banks, Ltd., v. George Henry Leslie, \£3 10s!, costs 10s.; C. M. Banks v. Catherine Pntsehka, £3 JSs; costs, 10s. j T. and W. Young v. Miss J. A. Roberts, costs 125.: Orme Keigwin and Co., Ltd., v. James Woods, M 12s. 2d., costs .£1 3s. Gd.; Henry. Baldwin v. Ernest Jones, Bs. 3d., costs «£l 3s. fid.; Bing, Harris and ,Co., Ltd., v. William Conroy, <£G7 15s. l)d., costs «C-i 3s. fid.; F. Cooper and Co., Ltd., v. Chow Fong, ".£2 2s. 2d., costs 125.; Abbott, Oram and Co. v. H. D. Morton, c£los 2s. lid., costs £5 12s. Gd.; Cycle and Motor Supplies, Ltd., v. William Sheridan, «£*s Hp. Bd., costs £I 3s. Gd.; Rosso Bros, v! Henry Griffiths, £5 10s., costs £\ 3s. Gd.; Justinian John luvein Powell v. Jack Hamilton and James Hamilton, M os. M., costs 135.; Bank of- Australasia v, George Goldstein, .£SO Is. Bd., costs £3 15s. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. W.'_ Wilson was ordered to pay e £B fls. to W. Wiggins, Ltd., on or before December 29, 1910, in default seven days' imprisonment."

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19101216.2.9

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1001, 16 December 1910, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,847

LAW REPORTS. Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1001, 16 December 1910, Page 3

LAW REPORTS. Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1001, 16 December 1910, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert