MURPHY v. HODGSON.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2008, 31 July 1880, Page 3

MURPHY v. HODGSON.

The following is the detailed account of this case heard before Mr Hellish on Thursday :—The claim was for £23 6s Bi. Mr Izard for plaintiff ; Mr Stringer for defendant. The matter of this ease was the subject of a previous action, in which on a contra, account, the present defendant had got judgment for £l2 14s 2d. Execution had been stayed by agreement until the present action could be heard before Mr Hellish, the amount of the former judgment being incorporated in this claim. Plaintiff said his account was made up of £7O money lent; interest on ditto, £2 6s 8d ; bailiff’sexpenses, £4 2s 4d; freight of sacks and grain, £8 14s 2d ; twine, 3s ; ar d twenty sacks, 15s ; amount of former judgment, £l2 14s 2d; total, £9B 15s 4d. He credited Hodgson with 500 bushels oats at Is 2id, 240 bushels barley at 2s lid, and 75 bushels wheat at 2s 6d, leaving a balanco of the amount claimed. He kept no books. The £7O was secured by agricultural lien and bill of sale. Part of it was cash, balance by goods, interest, and expenses. After harvest ho heard Hodgson was selling his crop. Sent a bailiff up to take possession of the stock, but that had disappeared before the bailiff got there. Afterwards bought the grain as detailed. His agreement was for delivery at Christchurch. The agreement produced was correct. Would not swear that the words “ delivery at Christchurch” had not been inserted after it had been signed. Recognised two letters produced as of his writing. LThe letters proved that the sale was solicited by Murphy, and that delivery was to he taken by him at Oxford.] Did not agree to supply sacks, &0., for the grain. Those ho supplied and charged for were sound and in good condition. Twenty sacks had been retained by Hodgson. J. Hodgson, a farmer living at Oxford, deposed that in Januory last, being pressed for money, he applied to Murphy for a loan of £7O, which was arranged for as described by plaintiff. The bill of sale was prepared and signed in Christchurch. Murphy did not give him the money then. Ho said he had business at Oxford, and would call, look at the security, and bring the money. He also said the deed would cost about £3 or £4. He did call . shortly after, and in conversation said he was selling a man up, and could sell Hodgson a horse and cart for £2O. Hodgson bought the horse and cart on the understanding that payment for it was not to be deducted from the loan, and signed an 1.0. U. for them, as he says, for £2O. Evidence was brought to show that Murphy had offered them to Hodgson for that price. Murphy, when asked for the loan money, said he had left his cheque book in town, but would send the money immediately on his return home. Hodgson heard nothing further of him for two or three days, and wanting the money for rent and to repay an overdraft, telegraphed Murphy, who asked him to come to town, bringing his bank book and rent receipts. He did so ; met Murphy, who said he would now have a settlement with him. The account, as arranged by Murphy, stood as

follows—horse and cart, £25; commission, &0., £lO 10s; drawing bill of sale, £7; Murphy’s expenses for viewing the property mortgaged, £1; and. he handed Hodgson a cheque for £25. This, he said, made up the loan of £7O. Hodgson, thinking he had no remedy, accepted the settlement, pointing out that the price of the horse and cart was wrong, and appealed to the 1.0. U, Murphy could not find that paper, and the item was not altered. The total of the account was afterwards discovered to be wrong, by 30s, in favor of Murphy, who said ho would make it all right when the bill of sale was discharged. While the bill was current sold the grain to Murphy as before described. The agreement and letters put in had been the first signed and the latter received by him. Agreed to deliver at Oxford; the place was not named in the agreement. When signed the words “ at Christchurch ” were not in it. A few days before the agreement a bailiff, without previous notice, came to his place, sent by Murphy ; he was afterwards withdrawn. The grain was delivered, and he thought the proceeds discharged his debt, leaving a balance in his favor. Had sued Murphy for the balance and got judgment. Plaintiff claimed for freight of bags, because the first lot gmt were rotten and were returned. He had kept four sacks only for his own use. Mr Stringer, addressing the Bench, said that it had been agreed that the former action should ho considered annulled, and it now rested with the Court to strike a balance between the accounts, dealing with the transactions on their merits alone. He felt that to characterise such an unprincipled scoundrel as Murpby as a swindler, he would bo merely “ painting the lily.”. He would be content to let his actions speak for themselves, hoping that in conscience and equity his Worship would find himself able to deal with the case as it deserved. He pointed out the £lO 10s charged was for the use of really only £25 for less than three months, and not content with that the further interest at 10 per cent per

annum was charged on £7O. The leas of the lOU was one of those sc* counts which frequently favored men of the stamp of the plaintiff and was of a piece with all the rest of it. Coming to the grain transaction, he pointed put the serious offence revealed in the insertion of extra words Jn the agreement after signature, which had not been denied. He contended that plaintiff by this operation and by the difference of his evidence in this and the former case had been guilty of forgery and deliberate perjury, and was utterly unworthy of consideration. He hoped his Worship would see his way to reduce the exorbitant charges connected with the loan as well as to disallow the other charges that had been proved unwarranted. Mr Izard replied, alluding to the fact that no matter what might now be said, the defendant had accepted Murphy’s conditions respecting the loan, and that matter could not bo interfered with ; as for the rest he would leave it in the hands of the Court. The Magistrate said he thought that Hodgson had undoubtedly agreed to the terms of the loan. As to the alteration of the agreement, ho had no hesitation in believing it to be an unmitigated swindle. The document had been altered by plaintiff, and in that condition its truth had been unblushingly sworn to by him. The freight should not be charged to defendant, nor twine, &0.. He would take time to consider whore the balance was, and give judgment at some future time. Mr Stringer requested the Court to keep possession of the documents referred to, as he intended to make use of them at a future time.