DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2550, 10 June 1882, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

Saturday, June 10. [Before His Honor Judge Ward.] MARKS y blub.

This was an action for the recovery of £27 10s, amount of a dishonoured promissory note.

Mr George Harper for plaintiff ; Mr Button for defendant.

The plea of a binding contract between the parties that the plaintiff would give time was set up. As this was an affirmative plea, the case of the defendant was taken first.

Alfred Oattlin deposed that he was a dentist residing in Christchurch; that he hei given plaintiff a promissory note for £27 10s in favor of Dr. Ellis, who endorsed it, and which fell due on January 13th, He saw the plaintiff about it some days after, propoaing to renew the bill in his own name, offering £5 for the renewal for three months. Plaintiff declined, and he then offered 50s for one month’s renewal. Plaintiff consented, but refused to give a receipt, telling him, however, that the bill would be left for a month. About February 15th, plaintiff came to him and said the mon’h would end a month from January 25th, and bo then gave him £2 10s, Plaintiff took the £2 10s, in consideration of the month’s extension.

Cross-examined—No one was present when be paid the 60s. Mr Marks did not claim anything extra for interest. Never had any conversation with Dr. Ellis about the bill. Mr Nioholls, his agent, asked witness to arrange it. Witness called several times on plaintiff without seeing him. Nicholls called on the 23rd February, and witness told him the bill was due on the 25th, Was not in Akaroa in January last. On reference to his note book he found he was there in March, Re-examined—The interest was either paid or deducted at the time the bill was discounted, but witness paid him 50s. This was defendant’s case. Hyam Marks deposed that he discounted the bill in question. Gave £25 for it. It was not honored. Advised Dr. Ellis of the faot. Saw Oattlin two or three days after in tho street, when he said be would arrange it, About three weeks after Cattlin called at his private house, but witness did not aee him. Witness had never taken any money from him since the bill was dishonored. Made no arrangement for a renewal, as he knew there was a bill of Bile over Oattlin. Cross-examined—Was certain ho was not at Cattlin’s house on January 25th. Did not see Mrs Oattlin, Oattlin was insolvent two years ago. John W, Hartle deposed that he was clerk to Mr H, Marks, Remembered when the bill came due. Saw Oattlin about it the same evening the bill matured, who said he would see Mr Marks in the morning. Had no entry in the books of any money being paid on account of the bill after it matured. Called on Mr Nicholls on January 19Sh, and on that day wrote him to the effect that as he had a power of attorney from Dr. Ellis his attention to the matter was requested. A few days later Nicholls asked if Oattlin had paid the bill or arranged for it, asking that the bill should te held over, and he would see Oattlin in the matter.

Cross examined—Ho entered any arrangements that Mr Marks told him had been made by him. Niohollp, deposed—He held a power of attorney from Hr, Ellis, and in that capacity received a notice of the bill in question being, dishonored. Saw Oattlin several times about it, and was under the impression that it had been renewed, as Oattlin told him ho had paid £2 10s for a renewal for a month. Did not think ha had received a notice in writing that the bill had been dishonored. This was the case for the plaintiff. Judgment reserved till Monday. A. MOOBE V M'EBIXAS AND MANN. Mr Button, for plaintiff, stated that the summonses had been served on defendants on the 24th and 27th of May, bnt he would be content to take it as served against one of the defendants. The damages claimed was £54 3s 4d. Adolphus Moore deposed that one Low don sold him 3000 bushels of barley. Its price was 3s B|d per bushel, equal to delivery at Rakaia. Moore had to pay rail from that station. The ballsy was not delivered. He applied for delivery, and received a letter from defendants offering the barley at 4s per bushel, on stating that Lowdon was only an agent. The barley submitted was a good sample. Witness still insisted on the delivery, but failing to receive it, had to buy barley subsequently elsewhere at 4s 3Jd per bushel, f.0.b., the difference of which sum and 3s B*d per bushel was the amount claimed, the rail charge from Hakaia to Lyttelton being 10s 8d per ton, or about 2Jd per bushel. He bought the barley from Wood, Sinclair and 00. The account showing how the claim was mads up was then handed to his Honor. Mr 8. Sinclair deposed that he remembered Mr A. Moore purchasing barley at 4b per bushel, which was a shade under the market price. Judgment for amount claimed and costs. THE QUEEN V TALBOT AND MCCLATCHIB. This was an action for amount claimed for storage of goods. Mr Joynt appeared for plaintiff ; Mr Nalder for defendants. Mr Joynt stated that this case came before this Court on the 23rd April last, when it was adjourned, at his learned friend’s request, for one month, without costs, for leave to plead, and as his learned friend had thus admitted the jurisdiction of the Court, he could not now appeal against it. In reply to his Honor, Mr Joynt thought the question of jurisdiction should bo raised on the plea. Mr Nalder did not know what locus standi his learned friend had in this Court, as the Act provided that the Attorney-General should appear for the Crown. Now, there was no warrant authorising his learned friend to appear on behalf of the Crown. Mr Joynt asked that the case should be adjourned for one month. After further argument by Mr Nalder, Mr Joynt would undertake to get the warrant signed in due form before the next session of the District Court. Mr Nalder pressed his point, and the ease was adjourned for one month, costs to be borne ify the plaintiffs. The Court then adjourned till eleven o’clock on Monday.