RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3233, 1 July 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Monday, June 30. (Before I. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.)

M‘Glashan v. Wilson.—This was an adjourned case in which it was sought to hold defendant, a solicitor of the Supreme Court, liable for a sum of money adeged to have been received by him seme years ago ; said sum being the proceeds of a consignment of goods belonging to plaintiff, residing in Edinburgh, and which were sold by defendant on his account. Mr Stewart again appeared for plaintiff, and Mr E. Cook for defendant.— Mr Wilson, re-examined by Mr Stewart, deposed that he had been unable to recollect of any other sum having been received by him on account of plaintiff, but the amount to which he had already deposed. Since, the hearing, last Court day, he had received a letter from Mr Duncan, with, whom hia books and business papers were stored, stating that no claim would be made for storage.—lnterrogated : Do you still adhere to the statement that L 32 is all you received on behalf of plaintiff ?—I can swear to the best of my belief that that is all I got, and you will get no other answer out of me although you keep me here all the afternoon. Would you venture to contradict a witness if he swore that you got more than 132? Mr Cook objected to the question.—After arguments it was allowed, and the witness replied by reiterating that to the best of his belief L 32 was all he received. Examinasion continued : When De Maus became insolvent, the goods were claimed by the Registrar of the Supreme Court as part of his (De Maus’s) estate.—Witness saw the Registrar, and after considerable trouble, got him to forego his claim to the goods. William Sly, examined by Mr Stewart, deposed that he remembered the goods in question being delivered to defendant. Under instructions from plaintiff, he applied to defendant to account for the proceeds as far back as September, 1872. He applied on that occasion through his solicitor. To that application defendant replied. Witness kept a copy of the reply, and sent the original letter to Mr M ‘Glashan. Mr Cook objected to the copy of the letter being read, and. after a lengthened discussion, the reading of the letter was not insisted upon. Witness continued hia evidence as follows :—Defendant, at an interview had with him, stated that he had sent his bill of costs to plaintiff, as also particulars of the whole transaction, Mr M‘Glashan, in his letters, stated that no such bill of cost or particulars had ever been received by him. Excepting the first letter acknowledging receipt of the goods, plaintiff had received no communication from defendant, He (defendant) promised to give witness full particulars of the whole transac ion before he left Dunedin, but failed to do so, The first time be saw the bill of costs put in as a set-off was on the evening before the first hearing of the ease,—Henry Youngman, salesman in the employment of the late E, De Carle, produced the books of his late employer, and was examined at length as to the sale of the goods in question. The evidence given by the witness was met at every step by objections, which were discussed by counsel on both sides. Defendant, during one of these discussions, made a remark to plaintiff’s solicitor, which resulted in the latter applying to the Court for defendant’s committal. In doing so, he said he hoped, for the credit of all concerned, that few cases of this nature would come before the Court. Throughout both this and the previous hearing, defendant had been constantly holding out threats, and he (Mr Stewart) had been remonstrated with for not having applied for his committal at the first hearing. Unless he apologised both to the Court and to hirnsdf he would insist upon his committal.—After some delay, defendant said he would withdraw any offensive remark, and the matter dropped. The case was then adjourned until this afternoon.