RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3176, 25 April 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq,, E.M.) civil CASES. M'Gill v. Kincaid and M ‘Queen. —His Worship gave judgment as follows .* —“ I have given the circumstances of this case much consideration, and have examined the cases cited by the learned counsel on both sides. 1 am of opinion, from the evidence adduced, that the defendants, by pointing out the goods to the bailiff as those of Dyer, and allowing the seizure, made a delivery of the quartz crushing machine, whether in a complete state or not. The bailiff then appears to have re delivered possession of the machine to the defendants, who acted as his servants in keeping possession of the property. The machine was sold on the 23rd August, 1872, by the bailiff, apparently without objection on their part, by which sale the property passed to M'Gill. Matters having arrived at this stage, I can come to no other conclusion than that the defendants, by subsequently refusing to deliver the machine, or delivering it to any other person than M'Gill, rendered themselves liable to JVL‘Grill for its value, which appears by the evidence to bo L 250. Judgment for plaintiff, LIOO, together with costs.” Mr Holmes gave notice of appeal. Goodwillc and others v. M‘lntyre (of Invercargill), Mr Anderson (of Messrs Smith and Anderson) applied to have the examination of William Henderson taken on behalf of the plaintiffs. Mr Stout for the defendant. Win. Henderson, late bookkeeper to Mr Harvey, solicitor, Invercargill, agent for the plaintiffs, said he did not recollect having received interest, duo on 30th June last, on a sum of money. He received payment for the September quarter in October, from Mr Mayer, of Invercargill, and, being under the impression that the June quarter was paid, although there was no entry in the ledger, be called his attention to it. His idea that tho June quarter was settled was solely through Mr Harvey saying he never troubled himself about MTntyres interest, as it was arranged, it was not in consequence of any payment having been made to him or anyone else, that he was aware. Mr Goodwille was very punctual in collecting interest, and he heard nothing further about it. Lange and Thoucman v, Lun Chung and Chun Suno. —1,1)7 3s 1 Id. Mr Scout for the plaintiffs, Mr Haggitt for Lun Chung, and Mr M'Kcay for Chun Sung. The circumstances, as given in evidence by Louis Thoueman, were that the defendants were Chinese storekeepers at the Arrow and Dunedin. Lun Chung was at the Arrow. The firm of which he was a member supplied them with goods for several years. They first started business at Lawrence, After giving up their business in that place, Lung Chung went to the Arrow and

managed the business there. Chun Sun* J \ad frequently bought goods for the Arrow I •nsiness, which had been sent thither Mos( >f the payments were made I) 3' Chun Sung. Iccasionally Cun ('bung bought, and had admitted that he was a partner. lie had aakco Chun Sung, “ Has my partner paid so vnd-so ?” Chun Sung had admitted the lout. Some time ago they owed the firm ’ 409, and were refuse;! further credit ; but Hiveral times since that time Ire had acknowledged the debt. Lun Chung’s name did not rppear on the hooks. The name of the firm inder which they traded was He Yoon, Ac top, and others. Those words were not names of men but of stores, like signs of inns. Cross-examined by Mr Ilaggit : (Tim ledger was pro meed.) Chun Sung had a plan; of business in Stafford street, which lie had never seen. 11 is name was on the sign board. The entry in the ledger was Chun Snug, He Ti. H« Ti was the original nam.,f the business. He always thought him liable. Although the summons was issued to Chun Sung, ho knew lain Chung to be liable. On refusing credit to Chung Sung, the whole of the accounts of the various branches were placed to his debit. He Ti was Lun Chung, Chun Sung and another man in Melbourne. Having originally a guarantee fora thousand pounds, he did not think it necessary to enquire who were the members of the firm. He was not aware that Chun Sung was a commission agent, buying goods for all the Chinese throughout the country. —Kc-ex-amiiicd by Mr Stout : The debt of Lun Chung of L 283 had been reduced to its present amount through payments by Chun Sung. —Chun Sung applied to give his evidence through Chin Sing. He was sworn by blowing out a match. He said Lun Chung was his partner. He ooil was the sign name of a store at Arrowtown. The firm consisted of Quang 11 cay, Lun Tung, Yun Yin, and Chun Sung. He Ti was the name of the store at Lawrence, inn Chung was a partner. He (Chun Sung) paid for all the goods purchased of Lange and Thoncman.—Cross-examined by Mr Haggitt : He bought goods for Chinese stores up the country. He was a member of a company. Lun Chung was a partner in the store, and all transactions were on joint account. Lee Choo was Ae Hop’s partner. Lnn Chung was a member o' the company.— Mr Haggitt, for Lun Chum'’, said the amount was not within the jurisdiction of the Court, as the balance had been reduced by certain transfers having been made, not included in the partnership accounts. —Mr Stout held that it was necessary to establish such a defence to show that Lnn Chung was not a partner. —Mr Haggitt replied tiiat it was necessary that the accounts should have been reduced by payments, or admitted set-offs ; for otherwise die Court would have to enquire into accounts, of which many would be above the jurisdiction.—Mr Stout said the only set-off was L2 Bs, which, even if struck off, would leave the balance within the jurisdiction of the Court. His Worship referred to Woodhead and Newman, 52, “Law Journal.'’ — Mr Haggitt withdrew his objection. His Worship said bo did not think, on the face of the account, be had jurisdiction, without a memorandum. Judgment for the plaintiff, L 93 7s lid, as against Chun Sung.