RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3314, 3 October 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, October 3. (Before I. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.) M‘Keay v. Richard Evans : Claim L 34 Is 9d. Judgment by default for plaintiff for amount claimed, with costs, Hogg and Hutton v. Wilson and Boss, as trustees in the estate of P. M. Grant and Co—Claim L 7 >, for loss and damage sustained by defendants’ wrongful conversion of certain goods to their own use which belonged to plaintiffs. Mr htewart appeared for plaintiffs, Mr E. Cook for defendants. — Mr Stewart stated the facts of the case, as follows : —On August 15 plaintiffs received an order for the goods in question from P. M. Grant and C®., of Outrara. They were forwarded to and received by that firm, who, however, having been for some time in difficulties, wrote to plaintiff's stating that tbe goods were untouched and would be returned, A day or two after, Grant and Co, called a meeting of their creditors, at which they stated that they did not look upon these goods as part of their assets, bub they were to be, returned to plaintiffs. The creditors, however, objected to this, and the defendants, who were appointed trustees in the estate, took possession of the goods, Counsel therefore based plaintiffs’ claim on two grounds : First, that Grant and Co., knowing the state of their affairs, received the goods on plaintiffs’ behalf; and second, that there was no actual receipt or acceptance of the goods within the Statute of Frauds before the meeting of creditors, and before that meeting Grant and Co. had intimated their intention of returning them. In support of this view the following cases were cited:—James v. Nicholson, 6 L.J., new series, Ex., p, 241, and Nicholson and another v. Bowers, 28 L.J., new series, Q 8., p. 97. —P. M. Grant: I was in business at outran), and gave plaintiffs an order for the goods in question on Friday, August 15, which arrived on the Sunday, They were placed in the storeroom. I came to town on the Wednesday, tffeday on wbieff the meeting

of my creditors was held. My statement of assets did not include the goods, as they were only newly opened and very little of them used. When I made the state raent that the goods would be returned t > plaintiffs I thought they were untouched, but the storeman had opened them. I commenced to take slock for the statement on the ISth and did not include these goods. I did, on the 20th, just before my meeting, tell plaintiffs that the goods were by themselves and they could have them back. Before the second meeting it was arranged that if my brother would become security 1 was to sell goods in the store for the benefit of the creditors. Mr Jeffreys afterwards took possession of the store and goods for the trustees. Plaintiffs sent for the goods. There was no partnership in the business, though a younger brother of mine participatediu theprofits. Mr D. Grant had no interest in the business, neither did he pay any accounts on behalf of the firm. My brother has purchased the business, and lam manager for him There was a writ against me by Good-fir, Pell and Co. for L 312, but I only owed them LIOI. This was the cause of ray calling a meeting of my creditors. To Mr Cook : 1 was indebted to plaintiffs at the time of ordering these goods. I did not tell plaintiffs the state of my affairs before the meeting. I had no desire to favor plaintiffs in preference to any other creditor, and only put the goods aside as I always did with wholesale goods on their arrival at my store. I have had goods lately from other firms, including Hayman and Co. and stavely and Co. I told plaintiffs that the question of their goods would rest with the creditors. (Left sitting.)