UNKNOWN

Evening Star, Issue 3950, 22 October 1875, Page 2

UNKNOWN

Friday, October 22 (Before-). Bathgate, Es<p, R. V!.) j M, and J. Meenan v. Cochrane. This was ! » fraud summons. Mr Stout appeared for : plaintiff, and Mr Aldridge defended. It : appe red that the defendant had filed a declar-

ation of insolvency, but had not yet b-en adjudged a bankrupt. Mr Aldridge applied for an adjournment for a we>k, which was strenuously opposed by Mr Stout, who pointed out that if the application were granted defendant would probably he adjudged a bankrupt and his clients be prevented from proceeding further Eventually the case was adjourned until Tuesday. Gillies and Street v. F. Cross.—Haim L 6, commission for obtaining a loan of 1.600, Mr G. Cook appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr Stout defended.—Defendant, it appeared, had called on the plaintiffs and asked them to obtain a loan of L7OO. He was informed tha they had a sum of 1.600 to invest for three years at. 8 per cent. Defendant then s, id he would let them know whether he would take it. He never i claimed, but he accepted the same I 600 as a loan for two years from Messrs Connell and Mo "die. Plaintiffs therefuie considered they were entitled iocommission. Mr Gillies, in cross-examination admittedthaticwas not usual to charge commi-sion unless the transaction was Completed ; but this be considered an exceptional case, the money having b?en taken from another him ju toe same terms. Defendant stated that he had asked for the loan for two years, and that he refused to lake it for three. Judgun nt was reserved. T. Mackey v E I’eacock.—Plaintiff sued defrn iant, nuister of the ship Invercargill, for LlO damages, sustained through the mss of two g.-me f .wls by the neglect of one of defendant’s servanls. Mr Holmes app<-arei for plaintiff, and Mr Adams for the defendant. The ship’s •toward had killed and cooked the fowls, not knowing anything about them. Judgment was given lor L 7 and costs.