MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2226, 16 April 1881, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHKIBTOHUBOH. Wednesday, April 13. [Before J. Nugent Wood, B»q., K.M.] Burnham: School Children. John Isaac Newtcn, summoned to show cause why he should not contribute to the support of his five children who are at the Burnham School, did not appear, was ordered to pay 2s 6d per week for each of them. A case against George Long for the maintenance of a female child was defended by Mr Stringer. Defendant swore that the mother of the child was not his wife, and that he did not think he was its father. The case was dismissed without prejudice, the Magistrate (recommending the police to bring it on again if further evidence wore forthcoming. Anthony Ferriok, who did not appear, was ordered to pay 5s per week for one child. Frank Welsh, who had four children in the institution, was ordered to pay 2s fid per week for each of them. Thomas Dais, having two children in the school, said he was too poor to pay anything for their maintenance. The case was dismissed without prejudice, Eliza Page, the mother of two illegitimate children, also pleaded poverty. The case was adjourned for two months, to allow of the father to be proceeded against. Mary Ann Clark, for three children, was ordered to pay 3s per week for each of them. Joseph Armshaw,

three children, adjourned for one month I James John, Dowie, two children, to pay 2s , each weekly. Bichard Golding, in arrears on I a previous order for seven weeks at 7s 6d per week, was ordered to pay £2 forthwith. i Further hearing adjourned for one month. Civil Casks.—lvess v Caygill, claim £6O. Mr Button appeared for plaintiff. This was an action for the recovery of the value of certain printing plant, the property of plaintiff, converted to his own use by defendant. Joseph Ivess deposed that he let on hire to a person named Victor Clarke a lithographic stone and press, copper plate printing press, and other printing plant for the sum of £5 per month. Witness’ business called him away from Christchurch for a while. On his return ho found that defendant had possession of the plant. Plaintiff waited on him, and, producing the agreement with Clarke as evidence of ownership, demanded delivery of the goods, which was refused, and hence this action. Victor Clarke, an engraver, stated that the property belonged to Ivess, as stated by that gentleman. Witness had, notwithstanding this, sold, or signed an agreement to sell, it on conditions to Mr W. Charters, managing director of the " Telegraph ” newspaper, and the things were removed to the premises of the company. Afterwards the '• Telegraph ” changed hands, defendant taking possession, under bill of sale, of all the plant —amongst it that in dispute—that was on the premises. The agreement between witness and Charters was cancelled, but not till after Caygill had taken possession. Witness had not got the £6O he was to got for it. W. Thompson, journalist, lately in the employment of the “ Telegraph ” Company, said he had witnessed the sale note from Clarke to Charters. He knew the plant belonged to Ivess, and protested against its purchase. His remonstrances were not regarded, and, in consequence, he resigned. Defendant said he claimed, by virtue of bill of sale, all the plant of the “Telegraph” Company. He had found the things in dispute on the premises. He had offered to give them up if Mr Ivess proved his ownership. Ho was willing to do so now. Judgment: Goods to be given up or defendant to pay to plaintiff £6O ; costs £1 17s were allowed, together with solicitor’s fee, £3 3s, and expenses of two witnesses. H. Foaron v A. G. Saunders, claim £100; Mr Gresson appeared for plaintiff, Mr Thomas for defendant. The plaint stated that de- [ fendant having, while acting as agent for plaintiff, neglected to use proper diligence in collecting the amount due on a bill of exchange entrusted to him for collection, and having made certain misrepresentations in reference thereto whereby considerable loss to plaintiff ensued, damages to the extent of £IOO were now sought to be recovered. The plaintiff's case, as deposed to by himself and the maker of the bill, was as follows: In 1876 plaintiff’s brother, Eoger Fearon, was partner in soma racing sweeps with one Lawrence Wilson. Boger Fearon found the money; some tickets drew prizes, the money for which was obtained by Wilson and spent by him. The latter then gave Boger Fearon his bill for the amount so obtained and money lent, £B9, which bill is the cause of the present action. Saunders, it appears, acted as a bill discounter or collector, and the bill was handed to him for collection, duly endorsed to him. At that time, and for some time afterwards, Wilson had no funds. He is described as not being worth a penny, and the bill lay dormant. Some two or three years after the making of the bill, Saunders being abont to leave for England, handed the bill to the brother of Eoger, Harry Fearon, who is the plaintiff in the present action. Boger owed at this time to Harry over £3O, and had authorised Saunders to deliver the bill to Harry. It lay in Harry’s hands till long after Saunders’ return from England, when the latter having found out that Wilson was in funds, was in point of fact landlord of the Club Hotel, Eangiora, in which he had invested £3500, got possession of the bill again. He told plaintiff that he had better let him have it to do the best he could with it. After some time Saunders told plaintiff that Wilson had got some money from home, bnt had settled it on his wife ; was a rogue and a

shuffler, and there seemed to be little chance 6f recovering the money. This was on the 17th May, 1880, on the 20fch May Saunders again discoursed with plaintiff about what a bad mark Wilson was, and finally offered £4O for the bill. Plaintiff said he would have to consult his brother, who was south. A telegram therefore, written by Saunders, was sent to Boger, who, in effect, authorised the sale, which was duly completed. Plaintiff found out afterwards that a writ had been issued against Wilson by Saunders before the sale of the note to the latter. That writ was discontinued, being informal. The note, however, was delivered to Saunders, who sent Wilson another writ for the amount, with interest for four years added, making a total of nearly £l3O, which sum was paid by Wilson forthwith. The plaintiff maintained that if he had been informed that Wilson was able to pay in full, or if Saunders had not continually depreciated the value of the note, he would not have parted with it at the price he did. He did not know that Wilson was in Bangiora, much less that he had received a lot of money. The defence to the action was a point of law, which actually decided it so far ; but defendant was cross-examined at some length as to the whole transaction. He admitted the facts ss to his having possession of the bill, but said he had not concealed from Fearon the improved circumstances of Wilson. The latter had made many promises to pay and failed to do so, saying at last that he had spent all his available money and there was a bill of sale and mortgage over everything he had in the world. Saunders was so enraged at this that he determined out of pure revenge to buy the note and sue on his own account, as Fearon had refused to do, because ho feared the expense. When making the purchase he did not know, or forgot, that he could, after acquiring the note, recover the interest due on it for four years. Ho thought it was just a toss up whether he got the whole or nothing. He admitted having sent a writ to Wilson before he paid Fearon the £4O. He accounted for that by saying the transaction was arranged with Harry before, but not closed until Roger’s sanction was obtained. It was in the interval that proceedings were commenced. [His Worship hero enquired about the endorsement of the note, saying it was singular it was not produced,] Defendant then swore that when Roger first handed him the note it was endorsed by Roger to him, and defendant had never endorsed it to Harry, His Worship said ho thought there was no necessity to

go any further, because the endorsement as sworn to cleared defendant of any liability to plaintiff. If there was any damage, it had not been done to him, in short, the wrong man had been made plaintiff. Judgment—Plaintiff nonsuited with costa. Hargreaves v Jane, £4O 8s Bd, claim for timber supplied. Mr Spackman appeared for defendant, who did not dispute the claim, but put in a sot off of £3O, which he alleged was due him for the supply of plans and bills of quantities and the supervision of the building of a house, together with the use of certain tools. After hearing evidence, the Magistrate allowed £5 for making the plans, and £5 for the use of tools ; as for supervision, plaintiff had no claim, being already paid a salary for it. Judgment for plaintiff for £3O 8s 8d and costs. Hargreaves v Booth, £24 17s, claim for rent of a cottage, for value of fixtures removed from the same, and the value of certain tools. Plaintiff deposed that defendant had occupied a cottage ten weeks after being ordered to quit. When he left ho stripped the house of copper, shelving, hat-racks, &c., even to the door knocker and knob. He had further sold and received back, without accounting for, a saw bench and saw. These were the matters sued for. The action, probably, would not have been brought only for certain annoyances received from defendant. J. Mills, clerk to plaintiff, corroborated the above statement. Defendant stated that plaintiff had, under an assignment, taken possession of all his goods, even to his jack plane and chisels. The house for which rent was claimed, was built by himself ; he remained in occupation, but had never rented it from plaintiff, nor for fifteen months had any claim been made. The same was true as to the things he removed, which had been bought by his wife. He had been employed by plaintiff for some time after his assignment, for which ho was offered 10s aweek, which he refused. The saw - bench had been sold by him with the sanction of Mills, who told him to collect and keep the money for it. It had, however, been entered in plaintiff’s books afterwards as sold on account of plaintiff. After further evidence the Magistrate said plaintiff had no grounds of claim for any of the items, For the cottage there had been no agreement for tenancy, consequently there could be no claim for rent. The fixtures were either freehold fixtures, in which case the Court had no jurisdiction, or they were tenant’s fixtures ; if so, 'they belonged to the trustee in bankruptcy. [There had been a

bankruptcy and an assignment.] Ab for the aaw-benoh he ruled it was included in the goods allowed defendant by the deed. Plaintiff nonsuited, with costs and solicitor’s fee. Judgment was for plaintiff in Robinson v Dillon, £2O 8s 3d,