DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2224, 13 April 1881, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

CHRISTCHURCH. Tuesday, April 12. [Before His Honor Judge Ward.] E. EEMCE V H. GREENWOOD. Mr J. S. Williams applied for an order anthorisigp him to serve tho agent of tho defendant, under rule 69. Should he not get the order, he would probably accept a nonsuit. His Honor said he did not see his way to granting tho order. m'pahlane and others v the loan and MERCANTILE AGENCY. Mr Harper appeared for plaintiffs, trustees in the bankrupt estate of W. R. and E. M. Mein ; Mr Garrick for the defendants. The claim was for ,£2Bl 1s Bd, being the proceeds of goods hypothecated to the Loan and Mercantile Agency Company. I he defence was that the goods referred to were the property of Mrs Mein,who was indebted to the defendants in the sum of £335, which they set off against the plaintiff’s claim. Mr Harper called the following evidence : Mr Piper, one cf the trustees in the estate, under deed of arrangement 1879, said —I had no communication with tho Loan and Mercantile Company. After I became trustee, las one cf the trustees permitted Mr and Mrs Mein to cirry on their business as heretofore with the defendants. I took the most active part in the trust. The whole of the account sales and documents were sent to me by tho defendants. I invariatdy received the communications by the company’s messenger. X never remember receiving them by post. Cross examined by Mr Garrick—l received the communications referred to at my own private business place. I don’t know whether Mr or Mrs Mein were in communication with the company at any time.

W. H. Mein deposed—l am one of the debtors in the deed of 31st May, 1879. I did the whole business. Remember seeing the manager of the company prior to my resuming my business. Thue had been a break in the business. We had a general conversation about my starting afresh, and the manager said he could not make such large advances as before, and he made a reduction ; this was in consequence of the altered position in the business. The redaction was one farthing per fin on meats, and £2 per ton on tallow. After that I made an assignment to him, and the advance was made on that basis. I received some of the bills of sale; they were generally directed to my wife. The money I received was paid into tho account of the trustees.

Cross examined—l had no power of attorney to act on bohalf of my wife. Tho cheques were signed in her name. I signed the letters produced for her. The practice was for me to draw against shipments for London. The bills were drawn by me, and endorsed by my wife. The original letters of hypothecation were signed by her. That was the eours« followed as directed by ibe company. The conversation with the manager of the company had reference to the bankruptcy, but I cannot remember what was said. This was the case for the plaintiff.

For the defence, Mr Garrick called— Mr Collinder, who deposed that he was an accountant, employed by the defendant, and, as such, he was in the habit of addressing letters to the trustees in the estate of Mein. The first letter addressed to the trustees was dated December 19th, 1879. Cross-examined —That letter was written on the understanding that the estate was then absolutely assigned. Ko goods were shipped after December 19th, 1879 The documents produced a- e account sales of the goods received from the London agent. '1 he goods mentioned must have been shipped before December 19th, 1879.

Ro examined —By saying the estate was absolutely assigned, I meant that at that time we were defini ely informed that the trustees were conducting the business, and that they should bo addressed. I do not know from whom such information was received.

J. Cook, manager of the Christchurch branch of the Lean and Mercantile Agency Company, said —I recollect the interview with Mr Mein with reference to the advances, informing me that a Deed of Inspectorship had been issued, giving trustees power to contract his estate, but that the business would go on as before. At the same time, be said it was not an absolute assignment. On that understanding I agreed to make advances. I remember receiving the trinted notice produced, but did not carefully read it.

His Honor—l ebon Id advise yon for the future to carefully peruse all such documents. hxamioation continued—l did state that in consequence of a change in circumstances the rate of advances would be reduced. After December 19th, 1879, the accounts were rendered to the trustees. I believe that my impression was that the deed of assignment was actually executed immediately prior to that date. Easiness between the company and Mrs Mein as regarded advances, was at that time virtually at an end. In the London account there was a debit balance in favor of the company. This was the case for the defence. Counsel then addressed the Coart. Certain techni'-al law points being raised which rendered an amendment of defendant’s pleas necessary, the case was adjourned, by consent, till next sittings of the Court. The Court then adjourned.