MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2120, 9 December 1880, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

OHBISTOHUEOH. Wednesday, Deoembbb 8. Oiriii Oases. —Hargreaves v Sharp, claim of £6O 17s lid, for building materials supplied to one Ward on the guarantee of defendant. Mr Cowlishaw for plaintiff, Mr Stringer for defendant. Howard and Mills, salesman and manager for plaintiff, deposed that Ward, having contracted to build a house for defendant, came to the mill for material. He was refused credit, and then brought defendant, who gave a written undertaking that he would pay for timber supplied to Ward up to the amount of £SO. The guarantee was afterwards enlarged, verbally, so as to secure plaintiff payment for the whole of the timber (value not being stated) required for the building. Defendant now refused to pay for the timber. In crossexamination these witnesses said that the guarantee had been most explicit, and often admitted. Defendant stated that on payment of £25 the guarantee for £SO was given up to him and destroyed. Another document was then drawn up, being an order from Ward to defendant authorising him to pay Hargreaves out of monies to become due on his building contract for all timber used in it. This he objected to, and an addition was made which made the payment contingent on the completion of the contract by Ward, ho then signed it as approved by him, and Hargreaves accepted it. In crossexamination he said the timber was all on the ground before the last document was drawn up. He had paid £35 to Ward, who had absconded, leaving the house unfinished. Mr Stringer said plaintiff must be nonsuited, because the work had not been completed as stipulated in the second guarantee, and if a nonsuit were granted, and another action were brought, ho should have good grounds for a similar application, because the writing said the work was not only to be completed, but it must bo completed by Ward. Ho quoted cases to show that the law would uphold this exaction. Mr Oowlishaw said his friend was making the mistake of claiming the document as a guarantee, it was nothing of the kind, it was a transaction between Ward and Sharp. There was, however, a direct guarantee of very different value, as proved by the evidence of Howard and Mills, which was too ample to be disputed, and in the face of that the collateral guarantee of the writing was of little importance. He cited the decision in a case reported in the “ N.Z. Jurist,” 1878, in support _of his contention. His Worship said he would take time to consider the point, and

give judgment on the 15 th instant, Hazelhurst v Batchelor, claim £2O, the amount of a dishonored biH of exchange | Mr Slater for plaintiff, Mr Stringer for defendant, Plaintiff Bold to defendant the goodwill of a baker’s business on a bill, which had not been met. Defendant alleged that the business had been given up by him and taken back by plaintiff, which extinguished his liability. He had sold a horse and cart to plaintiff, for the price of which a cross action was pending. In the opinion of the Court defendant had not been relieved from his liablility, and judgment was given for plaintiff, £l2 2s 9d for the horse and cart being allowed as set off, defendant to pay the balance, with costs of Court, professional fee, and expenses of four witnesses. George v Alio way. This was a re-hearing, after judgment having been given on a previous day for plaintiff, granted on the ground of defendant having been misled by plaintiff, who said he had withdrawn the case, which however was afterwards proceeded with in defendant’s absence.

Also that the wrong person had been sued. Mr Izard appeared for plaintiff; Mr O’Neill for defendant. According to the plaintiff, Mrs Alloway two and a half years’ ago purchased at his shop a pair ot boots which had never been paid for, and their price, 16s, was the amount of the present claim, Defendant swore that she had never boots from Mr George ; had never been in his shop before the summons was issued ; she went there then, and suggested that the boots had been bought by her sister-in-law, then Miss Alloway, who was a customer of his. She further stated that plaintiff gave her to understand that the summons would not be followed up, which caused her to lose by default the case when heard before. Mr Alloway said he never knew his wife to have dealings with Mr George, nor had never seen her wear boots like those described by him. His Worship thought it most likely that Mr George had made a mistake, and nonsuited him with costs. Eekberg v Sycamore, £45 3s. Mr Izard for plaintiff, Mr Beeves for defendant. Plaintiff deposed that in May, 1877, he rented a house and section from defendant, his agreement giving him power to purchase for a sum named. Subsequently, he was anxious to complete the purchase, and offered defendant the money, but the latter refused. Plaintiff then would not pay the rent,_ and defendant put in the bailiffs several times, who were paid out, always under protest. At the request of defendant, ho had paid rates for the property, and he had put up a fence dividing the section from that belonging to defendant, which adjourned. The rent wrongfully paid, the half cost of the fence, and the rates he had paid made up the amount he now sought to recover. Defendant in answer, said the right to purchase extended over one year only. Plaintiff had defaulted in his rent payments during that year, and at its expiration was not ready with the £3OO necessary to purchase the land. Witness swore positively that plaintiff had never offered him that money. He would have been glad to accept it. Witness warned plaintiff at the end of the year named in the agreement that if he remained in the house the rent would be 12s weekly. The rent after that was only got by distraint. The fence was put up by plaintiff to replace one which he had destroyed. The rates, it had been understood, were payable by plaintiff. Ho had received £6 at and shortly after the time of the agreement, as deposit not as rent. After an occupation of over eighteen months, plaintiff left the house and let it to others, receiving rent for it. A great quantity of extraneous matter was dealt with in thevery long hearing of this case, but the above is all the evidence bearing on it. Mr Izard said distraint had been wrongfully made, but brought forward no proof of the statement. The Magistrate considered that rent was lawfully due by plaintiff while in occupation. He did not believe any tender had been made for the completion of the purchase. Including the deposit there had been £4 6s over paid, for which amount judgment was given in favour of plaintiff, with costs and professional fee, £1 Is. Sycamore v Eekberg, this was on a judgment summons for £l6 43, rent of the property dealt with in the previous suit accruing at a later period. The same gentlemen appeared for their respective clients. The case was hoard at a previous sitting, when defendant alleged that he was absent from Christchurch at the time when the summons, which the present proceedings followed was sworn by the bailiff to have been served on him, and an adjournment was granted to allow him to produce evidence in support of that statement. This evidence

was, however, not forthcoming, but defendant persisting in his assertion that he could get the evidence if more time were allowed, an order was made directing the money to be paid into and held by the Court until further instructions, to be re-paid if the alibi was proved. Defendant to pay costs and professional fee. Greenwood v Pyns, claim £lO. Mr MeOonnel for plaintiff, Mr Izard for defendant. The evidence showed that defendant had instructed plaintiff to procure for him a loan of £4OO, and, after all preliminaries had been arranged, up to the signing of a mortgage over certain properties to be given as security for the loan, ho refused to complete, and declined to pay the amount as above, which was plaintiff’s charge for commission in the transaction. Judgment was for plaintiff with costs and solicitor's fee. Crouch v Rogers, £2O. This was an action for the restoration or payment of the value of certain personal effects detained by defendant, a boarding-house keeper, until a eUim he had of £2 15s for board and lodging was satisfied. Defendant was ordered to give up the effects within a week on payment of his claim, or to pay £2O, defendant to pay costs and solicitor’s fee. Judgment went by default for plaintiffs in Mulligan and Co. v McMahon, £2B 18s 7d ; Page v Pryne, £l7; and Wilson, Hawtell and Co. v Jones, £lO. McPhee and Co. v Murphy, Murphy v McPhee and Co., and Marks v Young were adjourned till December 23nd. Taafe v Jackman was adjourned till December 15th, Hutchinson v Smith till January 19th.