MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume I, Issue 14, 16 June 1874, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Tuesday, June 16. (Before G. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M.) DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. John P. Mills, a sailor, arrested by Constable Beck, was discharged with a caution. John Tree, arrested by Constable Firman for being drunk at the Christchurch railway station, was fined 10s, or twenty-four hours in default. LARCENY FROM THE PERSON. John Tree was charged with stealing £8 from the steward of the ship;Rakaia. Sergeant-Major O’Grady stated that he arrested the prisoner at ten o’clock that morning on the warrant produced. He charged him with stealing £8 from a man named Stevens, steward on board the Rakaia. The prisoner, when arrested, said it was a mistake. Remanded to Lyttelton, to be brought up to-morrow. LYTTELTON. Tuesday, June 16. | Before W. Donald, Esq., R.M."| REFUSAL OF DUTY. Edwin Stone, cook and steward of the barque Auriga, was charged with this offence. Mr H. A. Nalder appeared for the prisoner, and the Court, after hearing the evidence of the captain and his first mate, ordered the prisoner on board, NEGLECTING TO KEEP A LIGHT BURNING. William Burnip, licensee of the Railway Hotel, was, upon the information of Constable McGooman, charged with neglecting to keep a light burning over his licensed house during prescribed hours on the night of the 10th June, and fined 15s and costs. CATTLE TRESPASS. The following persons were charged with allowing cattle to wander at large in the town: —Thomas Grange, one cow, fined 5s and costs. James Higgs, one cow, fined 5s William Mitchell and Charles William Browne, against whom there were two informations were fined 5s and costs in each case. KAIAPOI. Monday, June 15. [Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M., and J. Birch, Esq.. J.P.] CIVIL CASES. Dudley and Craig v Parsons and Fluty, claim, £44, Mr A. Thompson, solicitor, appeared as assignee of the debt, and produced the notice from the Bank of New Zealand, Kaiapoi, of the dishonor of the acceptance. The Bench asked for the original to be produced as the notice handed in was no evidence of the existence of the acceptance. Mr Thompson applied for a subpoena to the teller of the bank. ,W. B. Willock, teller, stated he produced the bill drawn upon Parsons and Fluty. The bank were the present holders of it. They held it for collection. It had not been paid. Mr Birch—ls the bank prepared to hand over the bill to Dudley and Craig. Mr Thompson—l object to Mr Birch putting the question. Mr Birch—You cannot object to the Bench putting questions which they think proper, and only Dudley and Craig appear to have any status in Court. Mr Thompson—l am to consider Mr Birch on the Bench, then. The Resident Magistrate—Yet it does not appear that he is an interested party. If it turned out to be so, it would upset the proceedings. Mr Thompson submitted the bill handed in was evidence of the claim. The Bench thought it was a question whether Dudley and Craig, under present circumstances, could sue at all. Mr Thompson held he was the owner of the bill, and as the bank could not sue for it; it was open to Dudley to do so. The Bench—Dudley and Craig sue on a document which so far seemed to be part and parcel of their estate assigned to creditors. C. E. Dudley said he did not appear as plaintiff, but as a witness for Mr Thompson. In reply to Mr Thompson, the teller said the bans were creditors of Dudley and Craig. The latter owed the former money. The Bench —Who is the assignee of the estate ? Mr Thompson—l am for the book debts. I submit the bank has no lien on the bill; It was left there for collection, and Dudley and Craig, if they had not been insolvent, could have claimed it to be handed to them. The Bench—No one but the holder of a bil 1 of exchange can recover upon it in law. Mr Thompson pointed out that Dudley and Craig were the constructive holders ; the bank did not hold it at all for money advanced on it, but it was simply left there for collection. To show his claim, he produced deed of assignment of Dudley and Craig’s book debts and securities to him, dated May 14th. In reply to the Bench, the teller said he was not at liberty to say if the bank had any lien on the bill. The Bench —We yet do not see that Dudley and Craig are the holders of the bill. Mr Thompson—On 14th May you must admit they were the holders. The Bench —And this action was not commenced then. Mr Thompson—The bill was dishonored May 9th, The Bench —And this action commenced May 23rd. Mr Thompson—Dudley filed in bankruptcy first on the 27th, and subsequently on June 6th, so that the action was begun before then. The Bench—The question is whether the subsequent proceedings would not affect a judgment. Mr Thomson hinted that question was not before the Court. The provisional trustee in bankruptcy should raise that if any one did so, and then he should hold the trustee could not claim this bill. The Bench Might hear what the agent of bank had to say. The Resident Magistrate here sent his compliments asking the agent to attend. C. E. Dudley sworn, said—He remembered on May 14th obtaining a loan from Mr Thompson, on behalf of Dudley and Craig,

for partnership purposes and carrying on trade. He gave several securities ; the deed produced was one of them, assigning the took debts of the firm. R. Macfarlane, agent at the bai 1:. sworn, said —The acceptance produced w is i laced in the bank for collection. It was m ! discounted in anyway. The bank a : p eseid hold it. Mr Thompson —In what way ?

Witness—They are in actual possession Mr Thompson—l claim it under this deed. Witness—We might detain the bill if we pleased; and the question is whether I should give it up without an order of the Supreme Court. I could detain the bill for what it is worth on our account. The Bench—lt appears if the bank hold it, Mr Thompson claims it, and then the trustee in bankruptcy may claim it. Dudley and Craig who now sue for its recovery have no claim. We hold they cannot sue. Mr Dudley—l am not sucing. Mr Thompson—But you arc my agent. Would the Bench alter the summons to make me Dudley and Craig’s assignee. The Bench —We cannot do so ; besides you only claim to be the constructive holder of the bill, while we have the actual bolder of it before us. Dudley and Craig have no standing in Court. A non-suit could be entered, and an appeal made. Mr Thompson —Then I will appeal. The Bench—No ; you cannot appeal. We will enter up no appearance. Birch and Co v W. Cooper, claim £l9 2s 6d ; no appearance of defendant; judgment for plaintiff for amount and costs. \ J. Lowthian Wilson v H. J. Wood, claim £2 5s 6d ; no appearance of defendant; judgment for plaintiff for amount and costs. Clark v Stevenson, claim £lO 15s 6d, for fencing ; adjourned till June 22nd. J. E, O. Birch v M. Simmons, claim £3l 18a 7d ; no appearance.