MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2148, 13 January 1881, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Wednesday, Jancaet 12. [Before J. Nugent Wood, Esq,, B.M.] Civil Cashs. —Gunn v Fisher, £2l, for board and lodging and money lent; Mr Izard for plaintiff, Mr Joyce for defendant; defendant put in a set off of monies paid, £ll 3s, and pleaded not indebted for the balance ; after going into a long series of cross accounts and lengthy evidence, his Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for £B, with costs, &o, £2 16s. Executors Radcliffe v Piper, £6 14s, for goods, groceries, supplied ; Mr Joyce for plaintiffs, Mr Thomas for defendant; defendant pleaded that the goods had been taken as payment of a contra account owing to him by Leslie Badoliff, who he understood was a partner of the late Wm. Radcliffe, whose executors had brought this suit; the case bad been before the Court previously, and plaintiffs were nonsuited on the 'round that there were colorable reasons for relieving in the existence of the alleged partnership, and consequently the action ought to have been brought in the name of Radcliffe and Son. Mrs Radcliffe, widow of Wm. Radcliffe, who bad not been called at the previous trial, now swore that she was intimately acquainted with the grocery business carried on by her late husband. Leslie Radcliffe, his son, managed that business at a salary. There never had been a partnership as alleged, nor could there have been without her knowledge. There had been certain billheads used in the business for invoices which bore the names “ Radcliffe and Son,” but the son had never been a partner. James Gibbs, late assistant in Mr Eadcliffe’s shop, stated that Mr Radcliffe, senior, bad told him he had intended to admit Leslie into partnership, but had changed his mind. Witness knew as a fact that there never was a partnership. The billheads had been printed at the order of Leslie Radcliffe, in anticipation, he supposed, of the event, which did not come off. The billheads had been used for about six months. Defendant stated that Leslie Radcliffe led him to believe that he was in partnership with his father, and the names on the billheads, in his opinion, confirmed that statement. Mr Thomas addressed the Court, urging that unless there had been some agreement existing between the father and son their joint names would not have been allowed to oppear on the billheads. Mr Joyce replied, and His Worship said that, as his decision might be of some importance in other possible claims, he would reserve judgment till the 19th inst. Barrit v Wilson, trustee in the estate of J. Bailey, claim £25, for illegal and excessive distraint and sale of goods, Mr Joyce appeared for plaintiff ; Mr Cowlishaw for defendant. Plaintiff said that being a tenant of Wilson in a house in Lichfield street, he sold out to another person, and removed bis goods to the warehouse of a neighbour. Witness was in arrears of rent £l2 10s, being for a month £7 10s, and the balance of former arrears. Wilson, the day after witness removed, sent a bailiff, who by some means got into the place where the furniture, &c., was stored, took it away, and afterwards sold it at auction by Mr Clifford, of Cashel street. GCho proceeds amounted to £22 4s 6d. He had not been served with any warrant, inventory of goods seized or account sales of the auction, and when he went to Mr Wilson ehoirtly after the sale for information, that gentleman ordered him away, threatening to have him arrested. Ho understood Wilson claimed £l6 5s for rent. His goods that were Bold were worth £4O. He claimed the amount wued for as reasonable damages. Defendant proved by several witnesses that plaintiff had made a “ moonlight flit," and that the proceedings in distraint were according to law. The bailiff obtained access to the place, where the goods were stored from adjoining premises, and forced the door open from the inside to allow them to be removed. The arrears of rent bod been misstated, but taking plaintiff’s version, and allowing for expenses, there was only a small balance remaining to the credit of plaintiff, and Mr Cowlishaw contended that plaintiff was not entitled to recover by the present action whatever surplus there was. The Magistrate, after hearing addresses from counsel, said he considered the action taken by the landlord to bo legal, and that there was not excessive distraint. Judgment for defendant, with costs, and expenses of three witnesses. Marks v Young was vd.journed till January 26th.