RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4126, 18 May 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, May 18. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.)

Judgment went for plaintiffs by default in the following case :—Thomson, Strang, and Co. v. Mary Bousfield, claim for drapery supplied. Stamper v. William Rogers.—Claim, Ll9 12s, of which amount Ll2 had previously been given judgment for and the remainder made up by law expenses and interest.—His Worship said he could not give judgment on a judgment, and the Ll2 would therefore have to be deducted from the claim. Further, the bill of particulars showed that plaintiff had been charging interest upon interest, and altogether it was a most extraordinary document. The case would be ad joumed, to allow the Clerk to the Court to draw up a proper statement of the account. Louisa M‘Kay v. John Barton.—Claim, L 7 6s sd, for meat supplied. Mr Lewis appeared for plaintiff.— Plaintiff and her daughter, Margaret M‘Kay, proved the delivery of the goods in question, and judgment was given for the amount claimed, with costs.

Thomas Henry Woodcock v. The Temperance Hall Company (limited). —Claim, L 73 15s, balance of account due for accountant’s work in adjusting the accounts of the company and other affairs in connection with the company. Mr Stout appeared for plaintiff; Mr J yce for defendants, who paid L3I Is into Court and disputed the remainder. Plaintiff stated that he was an accountant, and had adjusted the Company’a accounts and opened up a new set of books. Previously there had been only two small cash-books, a small memorandum book, and a share register. He believed no balance-sheet had ever been drawn up before, though the Company had been in existence two years and eight months. Mr M'Culloch used to be secretary, but had not been acting since February, 1875, up to January, 1876, when witness commenced work. He had a very difficult task, the accounts being wholly muddled, and he was occupied by himself for 203 hours and with assistance for 422 hours, in all 625 hours ; for which time he charged at the rate of 3s per hour. Witness had to get a great deal of information in driblets from anybody in connection with the Company. Cross-examined : Mr M‘Kay spoke to witness with reference to doing the work, but had no arrangement with him or any of the directors as to what remuneration he should

| receive! Witness employed aMr M'Gaa as 1 assistant, in whose handwriting some of the work appeared. Before doing this work witness had been doing general accountant’s work,— ydney James, accountant, said the usual charge for a competent accountant was three guineas per day. He Would consider plaintiff's charge reasonable for the sort of work he bad done.—George Grant, an aCOoUtttant of considerable experience in England and the Colony, said the usual charge for accountant’s work where no agreement was made was 10s per hour.—Cross-ex-amined ; Witness had not seen this comEany’s books.—J. W. Jago, chairman of the oard of directors of the company, said plaintiff had come to him for information When doing the company’s work.—Mr Stoat said he had several other witnesses who could give similar evidence, but he would not occupy the time of the Court by'calling them.—For the defence Mr Joyce colled John M ‘Kay, director of the company, who said in his conversation w th plaintiff L2O was the sum mentioned by the lattes os bis probable charge for-doing the proposed work. Plaintiff had then only seen the share register.—John Adams, another director, said in a conversation with plaintiff abbut the time the balance-sheet was to be produced the latter said he had had a very great deal of trouble in the matter, and meant to charge Lso.—James James, accountant and secretary to the company since February lash said he considered from L 25 to LBO would be an ample charge for plaintiff to 'make for the workhe had done. Cross -examined: A mouth should be ample time' for the work to be done in. Witness knew all about the state of the books amp what trouble plaintiff would have. —tT. W. Jago said he considered L6O a fair charge for plaintiff to have made.—George Blythe, accountant, said he had examined the company’s books and thought 180 would be a fair charge for making them tip.’ He considered two guineas a day fair remuneration for accountant’s work. Cross-dcatnined: Witness had not seen the rough books plaintiff had drawn up, and had not allowed anything for the running about to get infer mation.—George Hunt accountant, thought LSO liberal payment for what plaintiff had done. Cross-examined: Witness could not form any idea of what trouble plaintiff had been put to.—His Worship said he regretted having to repeat his warning to the directors of joint-stock companies to conduct their business in the way they are bound by the statute. If they failed to keep their books in a proper manner they would personally incur serious responsibilities: In this case the books had become completely muddled, and plaintiff had to build them up from the beginning. No fixed rate of remuneration could be decided on between the parties, as the work could not be estimated, and where there was no agreement he (his Worship) could not allow a low rate. Sitting where he did, he could not consider LI per day proper remuneration for accountant’s work—it was utterly absurd and not reasonable. On the other hand, three months was too long a time to occupy plaintiff in making up the books of a trivial company like the present. Substantial justice would be done if judgment were given for plaintiff for L 63, with costs. That might be more than the company would like to pay, but they had only themselves to blame. The judgment included the amount paid into Court. Linklater v. A. Austin. Claim L2 11s, on an 10 U defendant had signed on behalf of a man in his employment. —Defendant stated that the I O U was only for LI 11s, which he had paid, and plaintiff had altered the figures to L2 11s. - Plaintiff said the bailiff had made the alteration,—Judgment was given for defendant. Smith v. Jenkins.—ln this case Francis Bussell Smith, deputy-commissioner of stamps, laid an information against William Jenkins, upholster, in that he did unlawfully and knowingly write a certain receipt within the meaning of the Stamp Act of 1875, and liable to duty under the provisions of the said Act without the stud receipt being duly stamped, contrary to the provisions of the Stamp Act of 1875 aforesaid. Mr Haggitt appeared for prosecutor, Mr Monat for defendant.—-Mr Haggitt said the facts were that Jenkins some little time ago brought an action to recover L 9 16s 6d from one Prior, for goods supplied, and obtained judgment for the amount in Prior’s absence, and subsequently a fraud summons. On the day that the latter was to be hear*! Prior paid Jenkins IA on account, on the understanding (as Prior alleges) that the fraud summons should be withdrawn. Jenkins, however, went to the Court and obtained judgment on the fraud summons, and Prior, bring told that his receipt for L 4 would not be recti ved in Court unless he paid the fine of L 5, then informed the Customs authorities. —Mr Mouat said Jenkins did not deny having broken the law, but pleaded that the offence was the first brought under the statute, and also that the action had been brought] under malicious motives, Jenkins having suedPrior for a debt —His Worship said the only question for him was whether there were any alleviating circumstances in the case. He was willing to take into account that this charge was the first under the Act, and altogether he would in this case mitigate the fine (which was fixed by the statute at not exceeding L 10) to 40s and costs. The public, however, must bear in mind that any frauds on the revenue are always looked upon very strictly, and that in future any person offending in a similar manner would be filled the full amount provided by law.