DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2197, 11 March 1881, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

Thursday, February 10. [Before His Honor Judge Ward.] HAWDOS V. SCOTT.

Mr Harper produced the power of attorney in this ease, in accordance with the suggestion of the Court, and his Honor gave a verdict for plaintiff for the amount claimed with costs. H. MARKS V. J C. YOUNQ. Mr Holmes appeared for the plaintiff; the defendant was not represented by counsel. This was a claim of £BS, being the amount of goods sold and delivered, an overdue promissory note, &c. The claim for interest, £l6 ss, was abandoned. H, Murks deposed that he had a bill of sale over the goods mentioned in the bill of particulars. Not receiving payment on account thereof he seized the goods, which were put up to auction ; witness bought them in, and he sold them to Mr Young at the price he gave for them. Applied to Young for money. He said he could not pay, so witness took a portion of the goads away. Paid £4 5s law expenses to Messrs Harper, Harper _ and Scott on defendant’s account, and negotiated a promissory note for him to the amount of £5. These sums, with the goods which defendant retained, constituted the claim. By Defendant—l sold about £59 of the goods to the defendant. By the Court—l bought at the sale about £9O of goods. I took a portion of them away —value £27 10s —and said the remainder to the defendant. I also paid about £6 to White, furniture dealer, on his (defendant’s) account.

By Defendant—l gave you the receipt produced for money received ; but it has no reference to the account at present in dispute. John Hart, clerk to Mr Marks, the plaintiff, deposed that he was sent to the defendant with a message asking him to pay for the goods or return tbem. Did not see Young on that occasion. At subsequent periods heard Mr Marks apply to defendant for payment of the goods. By Defendant—When I visited your house I saw Mrs Young. I came up on horseback.

This concluded plaintiff’s case. The defendant submitted to ths Court the case involved a larger amount than the Court had jurisdiction to deal with, there being other accounts between himself and the plaintiff amounting to £2OO. His Honor pointed out that if he had a set-off to enter the Court would consider it, but, as to the jurisdiction of the Court, he must not consider accounts outside the subject of the present action. Defendant then submitted that plaintiff had made a profit on the goods ho bought-in, which had not been allowed for. Mr Holmes submitted that this was rather a matter for a Court of Equity. His Honor said defendant would be justified in claiming consideration for any profit on the sale of goods bought under such circumstances, and it could be put in as a set-off.

Plaintiff, recalled, said he made £4 profit on a horse and £1 profit on a cow. The horse was on his hands four months before he sold it. He repeatedly offered defendant the whole of the furniture at the same price he gave for it at the sale. H. O. Young, defendant, deposed that the understanding between him and plaintiff was that a portion of the goods should be returned to him after they were bought in. He admitted owing £4O Is fid, from which, however, was to be deducted his (defendant’s) accounts against the plaintiff for grazing, &o. The account for grazing was £5, being tbe charge for grazing horses belonging to plaintiff for four or five months. He could not give the dates. The receipt produced was for the price of goods bought at Matson’s auction by Mr White on his behalf. He (witness) paid for those goods £6 7s to Mr White. He bought the goods from Mr White. He did not recollect speaking to Mr Marks about them at the time of the sale. He paid £6 to White about six months ago, and the balance of 7s quite recently. The item “By cash, £6," is in the handwriting of Mr White’s clerk. This was all the evidence offered by defendant. His Honor gave judgment for £45 2a fid and costa. The Court then adjourned.