DISTRICT COURT CLYDE.

Dunstan Times, Issue 509, 19 January 1872, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT CLYDE.

(Bt-f 'reTlis lb nor Judre Hrey.) ' i C. and W. Colelongli v. llony.vi. Claim • fur 7 01., oa two disironor-.d Bills of Ex- j change. Mr. Brough appeared fur plaintiffs, and Mr. W. W. WiUon for defen .taut. For the defence it was argued that, as the bills could not he produced, they b. ing lost a:.d that th y being endorsed no suit ccmM lie. Sccon ly, i was held that as the Bids af'er dis onor had been carried i .to cuive it account, n i suit would lie as against the Bill, hut must be b.ou.ht on r.n account i f items in which the bills would b .■ included. 1-aide:.ce was taken and it was elicit'd that ihe onaors, incut i.ad b en erased on being reture I to he drawei, af e. dislu.nour, and further that monies had b . n paiil by the defendant to the p aintilb, the deiendant iivening such mono s to have I ecugiven on ace lint ot the i.ills, whilst.-he plaintiff .leposcl it was for go Is supplied into tile acceptance a d dishonor ol the Bi Is. His Honor rese ved judgment that he luiglr- have alt opportuei y of ex mining with car.; the sevei-al d. cu.m n s pro meed in evi .cure; and specially the books of the phuoti..3. in the following morning he de.nered (ju gmentl -as 'follows -Hi. Honor said he hj id come to the conclusion, tio.t the acceptances ha i for a time been kept sepa ate from the gen ral account, and so lon 5 as do y had been ke,.t s parat., the I'aymen s made hy defendant were not ;.p---prop-dated to lb.- payment of tbcni. but. about the oth of Do ember. 1870. they had li en chained in tile -enc-r d account against delenlaut, a-.i altli. ugli there v. as sonm eviueneo to shew tlia the nlaintiffs di i not r. aby intend to'credit the acceptances with tiio plynicnts snbsupuently mad:-; 11 s Honor ihough4 it was not sa e to rely on than evidence opp-so ■to i.e evidence of the hooks a d of a hill of i etiis which ha t been rendu e.t about the tith of Ike nibor, Ibid, to the nef nlati'. hoih in the l.ooks an I in that account, the a ceptanceS appear in the gei c al aeci nt, i.iul I.e thought the.eioie the p.o. m nts sit s qu ntly made must bo co si e;el ns a propiiided,- first to th small bal,.nee that, was due when the a.-ecpiarits wer. placid in the gen lai acoi.u c, next to th ■ ..oceptm.-csandaf envards to goods subs .-quently do ive.cd ami charged in the account, tin e j avments w -ie snllieien to di uuavge the I alanee referred to, and so much of u e are p antes as wou.d le ve 121, Ids. sdli due. ■ The hill of articul.ns sued up. n, included the acu p ante only, and not any goods, so that- i ode- ol items could not ho tal er in this :nit. Jud e in-ut would llie.efo.a ho for Plaintiff tor 12;., 18s., ana Costs. Cl. 2s. 0. and W. Colclough v. Caldwell and party.—Claim Ihh;. b'-s. 3d., lor goods sold iclivo.cd and cash leu,., subject to a set oil. Mr. Broil hj for the plain-ids, and Mr. Whson for the defendants. The facts of the e-.s; are : defendants, who am miners, an i were possessed of a claim on the i.ardrona Deep Lead. During the year lotiii th-y ciituru.t into an agree in n with plaiudtfs, Who were stot eke pe.s a- tne (Jordroita, to or- oi them with pio-\is-ous a d funis necessity to work the e.aiin until gold was struck. Th.s agreemern, it was argil d f ,r the d fe co c. n s;t uted a partnr-li p; whcicus, on the other si t , it was hj -11 that no partnered p ixite i, and it was never .so imtmlid A mitt, u document, rig. Ed on y by C. C.-l-clou b, « a ■ produce I, an 1 which set forth i lia", in emmideration of be plain-ills .icing ere bt to the defen lan s for ail net.--saries for themselves and for working the c’aiui' tli y (the phvutiiis), when .old was obt -i’.icd, were to place a uan into the. claim to re res nt them, a: d tha r all Costs ofmrte-a'was o he taken out ..f the lirst-.ohl obt. in id. 1 his il c.mint, not' ei ig s'amp. d was notaccep.cdas ■ vii nee. .'uibsequendy, however, the penalty was paiil, a d tHe document admitted. After considerable argument as to the interpretation nf ihe document, the Court ruled that a partnership was intt n.ted to be form dif the claim i should prove pay a! le, but not nth rwise ; , that the plain ins should furnish in the j a eantime tools and all machinery fortrs'ino the claim, for which they were to he paid 1 r-nly in the event of the partnership being | formed, aid. and that if net fo.nied tiny ' remaine I th-ir property. His II nor thou; lit - therefore that a huge portion of the bill <• particulars, which consisted of tools and money advanced for the ptirrhns' of m.a. <*i-5 •T". most, be struck nit, and < nlv ‘ha 4 port on le i cd " l.i.'lr - ns for tlie sot a n f r rise of the 1 fen ‘mips. .Tiidgnv n’ "asV et eider-d. bv ei nsenf, for plaintifls for CO/., without Costs.