DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1969, 16 June 1880, Page 4

DISTRICT COURT.

ASHBURTON. Tuesday, June 15. [Before his Honor Judge Ward.] CIVIL CASKS. W. Fergus v W. 8. Peters, claim £2O 9s. On the application of Mr F. P. O’Reilly, this case was adjourned till next Court day. W. Sutherland v James Steele, claim £IOO. Mr Branson appeared for the plaintiff. In this case the plaintiff sought to recover damages for loss sustained by him through some stasis of corn belonging to him having been burned by a' fire which spread to his land from the defendant’s paddock. After hearing some evidence to that effect, and no defence having been made, Mr O’Reilly having declined to conduct the case on behalf of the defendant, his Honor gave judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed and costs. F. G. Luscombe v J. Grigg, claim £35 8s 6d. Mr O’Reilly appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Branson for the defendant. Mr Branson pointed out that no bill of particulars had been filed, and consequently no opportunity had been given to the defendant to make a defence. The plaintiff was consequently nonsuited with costs. George Roberts v Friedlander Bros., claim £2OO. Mr Garrick appeared for the Slaintiff and Mr Purnell for the defendants, n this case the evidence showed that a man named James Gardiner rented land from the plaintiff, and owed some rent for it. When Gardiner’s crops became ripe last harvest the defendants seized upon them under a bill of Bale and an agricultural Hen, but before doing oo wrote to the plaintiff, giving an estimate of the yield of the crops, and stating that there would be plenty to meet all liabilities, and that they would pay the plaintiff the amounts of his claim. The crops did not thresh so well os was anticipated, the prices fell, Gardiner became bankrupt, and the plaintiff now sought to recover the above sum from the defendants, on the ground that they had made false representations to him regarding the value of Gardiner’s property, and also that they had guaranteed to the plaintiff that they would pay him. The case lasted most of the day, and a considerable amount of evidence was taken. Mr Purnell urged that judgment should be given for the defendants on several grounds. There was no guarantee, as the letter did not constitute a guarantee. The statute imperatively required that particulars of the promise should appear in the document. There was no document, and it was not specified whether the guarantee was for £4OO or £6OO. The letter relied on only referred to an interview which would be held. He cited the oases HondeevMitchell, Addison on Contracts, h. 0. 8., new series 361, Mclvor vlßichardson, Addison on Contracts, 557, Mosley v Tinckler, Rosooe, 692, in support of his contention. He also urged that if the letters would be considered a guarantee they should be stamped, also that the bankruptcy of Gardiner released the defendants from liabilities, because the property then passed to a trustee, and the defendants were entitled to hold any money belonging to the estate. It would be seen that alleged false representations had not been proved. The defendants bad given a fair estimate of the crops, and if the prices of grain fell they had no control over that. He quoted Collins v Evans, 5 Q. B. 826; Tomb v Bingland, Eich, 731 in support "of, 1 this. As regarded false representations the plaintiff had had the same opportunity of ascertaining for himself the position of Gardiner, as he was bound in law to do. It was necessary for Mr Roberts to have proved loss, in order to sustain his action. Instead of loss Mr Roberts sought the recovery of £2OO, together with land, which had fallen to him. Mr Friedlander had offered him £4OO if he would give him the land, so that it could be seen there was no loss, whereas the defendants had loet about £2OO by the transaction. Mr Garrick said, as regarded the legal right of the plaintiff to the money he would admit there was no guarantee in the usual technical and measured legal terms, but submitted that taking the whole of the letters which passed between the parties, they would constitute a guarantee. One of the letters stated “ There will be sufficient for all. "Wo will not part with any money until you are paid.” This amounted to saying, “We will see you paid,” and was binding upon the defendants. He then reviewed the evidence, and quoted several cases to show that the representations made by the defendants to the plaintiff amounted to false representations within the moaning of the Statute of Frauds. His Honor stated the facts of the case to be that the plaintiff held a promissory note, drawn by James Gardiner, which was dishonored, and he communicated with Messrs Friedlander Brothers, who j wrote him a letter slating that there vrfs h large quantity of wheat, oats, and barley- on Gardiner’s land to the value of about £I2OO. Airto the question of guarantee he would rule there was no

guarantee, but as regards false representationb the case was different. liens which they held over the crops were illegal, and if the amount of these had been deducted from the amount realised by the estate there would have been sufficient to pay Mr Roberta. Judgment would therefore be for the plaintiff with costs, Mr Parnell gave notice o£ appeal. _ , . George Roberta v Friedlander Bros., claim £2OO. Mr O’Reilly appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Branson for the defendant. In this case the plaintiff sued for a Wood’s machine, sold by him to the defendants. The case was withdrawn, the parties to the suit having agree to settle the matter. IN BAHKBtTPTCT.

Final orders of discharge wore granted to Patrick Sullivan, Henry Thomas, and G. Rickards. The applications of G. Z. Ward and Risely Bros, were adjourned for one month. The Court then adjourned.