Feilding Stipendiary Court

Feilding Star, Volume XV, Issue 59, 7 September 1893, Page 2

Feilding Stipendiary Court

This Day. (Before H. Eyre-Kenny Esq., S.M.) A. L. Parr v. Thomas Cribbe, claim £4 19s. Mr Reade for the plaintiff. Judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, with lis costs of Court. A. L. Parr v. Frederick Klink, claim £2 6s on a judgment summons. Mr Reade for the plaintiff. The sum of £1 had been received on account, and the defendant was ordered to pay the balance forthwith, or in default of payment to be imprisoned for 7 days in Wanganui gaol. H. Bastings v. W. Hoppy, claim £3 ss. Mr Reade for the plaintiff for whom judgment was given for the amount claimed, with 6s costs of Court. H. S. Munro v. A. and S. Ratliff, claim £37 16s. Mr Reade for the plaintill, Mr Prior for the defendants. ! H. S. Munro deposed that he employed the defendants to collect the sum of £40 trom a man named A. Wiclts, and 1 the latter gave Ratliff Bros, instructions to sell his property, and on the 12th of May last, Wicks gave an order on the defendants to pay witness the amount in question. Wituess subsequently agreed to allow the defendants ten per cent, commission. On the 7th of August, witness received a letter from Mr Sandilands enclosing a statement 'showing that £31 Pis 4d was due from witness to the writer, that Mr Sandilands had paid Ratliff Bros, their commission of £4, leaving a balance of £4 7s 8d in his (Munro's) favor for which a cheque was enclosed by Mr Sandilands. Witness denied ever authorising the transfer of Wicks' order to anyone. Cross examined : At the time this transaction took place Mr Sandilands was acting as plaintiff's solicitor, and several actions were then in his hands. Witness was not aware that Mr Sandilands acted for both vendor and pur» chaser of Wick's property. The last time witness saw the order it was in Wick's possession. Witness denied ever telling Mr Sandilands to account for the order in the manner in which he had, though he may have said he had no objection to Mr Sandilands receiving the money, but he demurred to its being dealt with in the manner in which it had been. Thomas Lowes deposed that about a month ago he heard A. Ratliff state in Birmingham that he had no doubt Mr Munro could obtain a refund of the money from Mr Sandilands. David Guthrie deposed to taking part in tho conversation narrated by the previous witness, and he (Guthrie) ex-*, pressed the opinion that Ratliff Bros, were liable to Munro for the amount. Alfred Ratliff deposed that Mr Sandilands acted for both parties in tho sale of Wicks' property. Munro did not object to the money passing through Sandilands' hands. The latter paid his firm the £4 commission on the transaction. By the Bench : The order on Wicks was not in its present state, when his firm handed it over to Sandilands. Sidney Ratliff deposed that Munro never instructed him to part with the order. Witness handed the order over to Sandilands for him to obtain the money. No portion of the £40 passed through his firm's hands. His worship said he did not think that there was any case to answer. Mr Sandilands was justified in tbe course which he took, seeing that he was acting as solicitor for the plaintiff at the timo. Ratliff Bros, did perfectly right under the circumstances of the case, and had nothiug to answer. The plaintiff would be nonsuited with 19s costs, 20s witnesses' expenses, and £2 2s solicitor's fee. Thomas Lowes v. George Marsh, claim L 6 13s 6d. Mr Sandilands for the plaintiff, Mr Richmond for the defendant. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for the sum of L 4 2s 6d, with L 2 2s costs of court, and solicitor's fee 21s. J. H. Blaokmore charged R. Somerville with illegally rescuing a horse from his possession on the 4ih of August last. Mr Prior for the plaintiff, Mr Sandilands for the defendant. It appeared from the evidence, that the sub-ranger seized the horse in question and when he proceeded to drive tbe animal off it got away and ran into Somerville's yard. On a driving fee being demanded, Somerville referred wit* ness to Mr Ridley. In cross-examination, Thomas Foster admitted that he was not appointed as sub-ranger by the Borough Council. The ranger, Mr Blackmore, appointed him. Mr Sandilands submitted that no evidence of rescue had been proved. His Worship said he was of opinion that no rescue took place, apart from the question whether Foster had authority to act as sub -ranger. To prove a rescue, some attempt at forcible rescue must be proved, and this was not asserted by tbe complaint. The case would be dismissed but without costs. Leave of appeal was granted to the plaintiff. (Left Sitting.)