HUTCHINSON’S TRUSTEES v. MONK.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2024, 19 August 1880, Page 3

HUTCHINSON’S TRUSTEES v. MONK.

This case was heard before the Resident Magistrate’s Court yesterday. The claim was for £4O, for goods sold and delivered. Mr Harper appeared for the plaintiff (Mr Birch), Mr McOonnel for defen. dant. Mr Birch deposed that, as trustee, he had sold certain of the debts in the estate to Mr Hutchinson under a verbal agreement, and had received consideration for the same. Mr McOonnel applied for a non-suit, on the ground that Hutchinson should have sued in his own name, as the property in the debt had passed from the trustee. Mr Harper objected to non-suit, on the ground that as no deed was made between the trustee and Hutchinson the right to sue was still with the trustee. The case proceeded. Mr Birch went on to say that ha really knew nothing about the debt. The liability of Monk to Hutchinson had not been fixed until after he had parted with his interest in it to Hutchinson. The account had appeared in Hutchinson’s books, but, as understood by him, it did not appear to be of much value. He had written once to Monk, asking for a meeting, intending to get on explanation from him as to how this matter stood between them. Monk did not answer the letter, and he did not move further in it. He authorised Hutchinson to offer, in his name, certain terms to Monk in May last, although he had sold the debt in the previous January. G. Hutchinson deposed that previous to the cause of this action Monk owed him £l9 6s 6d. Monk afterwards gave him a promissory-note for £57 10s. agreeing to take out in goods the difference of the two amounts. Monk got one parcel of goods, value £7 15s, and sent orders for more to the amount of £4O. Not having the in stock, Monk’s order was sent to Wilkin and Co., who filled it. Wilkin and 00. sued Monk for the £4O, but ho obtained a nonsuit against them on the ground that his dealing was with Hutchinson. Witness had paid Monk £lO 10s since the bill transaction. Since the judgment in the case, Wilkin and 00. v Monk, he had debited in his books Monk for £4O, but had not debited himself in a corresponding amount to Wilkin and Co. Ho declined to state how heintendedto arrange with them. Messrs Monk, Hempleman, Wearing, and Lennard were examined, but nothing in addition, relating to the case was brought out. The point really in dispute being as to who was Monk’s creditor for the £4O. After long argument, during which Mr McOonnel raised several points, on which he claimed nonsuit, but in which the Bench did not agree with him, the adjusted accounts showing defendant indebted to the amount of £2O 8s 6d, judgment was given for plaintiff in that amount, it being understood that the points raised by Mr McOonnel might be re-argued, if application was made within a reasonable time.