DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2580, 14 July 1882, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

Fbiday, July 14. [Before Hia Honor Judge Ward.] PAYNE AND PAYNE Y LEACH. His Honor, in the above case this morning, prior to which learned counsel, Messrs Htringor and Spnokman, addressed his Honor as to whether the offer made by Payne to Leach to take no legal steps if the latter paid tho bill for medical attendance, did or did not constitute an agreement that barred further action, deferred judgment. HOOPKB T M'BAB. This was an action to recover damages for alleged breach of contract for delivery of mining shares, for which the plaintiff claimed the sum of £45 and 10s exchange. Mr Thomas appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Holmes for defendant. WLliam Hooper deposed that he was a sharebroker, and had had several transactions with defendant as a principal. On May 27th ho told plaintiff he had received an offer of 34j each for Keep it Dark shares, and he asked defendant if he would sell. The answer was that he would take 40i, and if plaintiff could get that figure he would sell. Plaintiff subsequently sold them at 40s, and asked defendant to sign a transfer, but he refused, saying he would neither sell or sign, as they had risen to a very much higher figure. Plaintiff then told him that ho had sold them, and was bound to deliver. He then filled up the body of tho transfer and signed it (transfer put in). The amount to be paid for the shares and the name of the shares in the bo’y is in Mcß.te’s handwriting. Ho subsequently noticed that he had made a mistake in the beading. He made out another correctly,and asked Moßas to sign it and destroy tha old one. He refused to do so, on the ground that the cheque given by plaintiff had been dishonored. Ho replied that if he would sign it he would get him the cash. Mcßae said, “It was Wealth of Nations I sold you,” but witness replied that he (Mcßae) knew better than that. He hesitated, said ha would see about it, and also said he should lose £SO by the transaction, when witnecc reminded him that it was not so long ago that he had sold him these very Keep it Dark’s at 30s 6d, A few day’s previously he had sold defendant Wealth of Nation’s at 5- 61, and on tho 30th of May they were worth Bs. He arranged for tha payment of tho money with his banker on condition that Mcßae lodged the transfer of 100 Keep it Dark shares, but Moßae did not respond. [At this stage a letter was put in from Messrs Holmes and Loughrey, stating that Mr Mcßae was willing to complete his part of the agreement ] Plaintiff had to buy other Keep it Dark’s in a rising market to keep faith with the purchaser he had found for Moßae’s shares, for which he had to pay 495. This witness was cross examined at considerable length by Mr Holmes. Messrs F. H. Barnes and Henderson gave evidence for plaintiff. Tho only evidence for the defence was that of the defendant, A. Mcßae, who stated that the agreement between plaintiff and himself was for tho sale of 100 Keep it Dark and ICO Wealth of Nations shares for £4OO. Counsel addressed the Court at considerable

length. His Honor considered the weight of evidence was on the defendant’s side, and judgment would be given accordingly. The Court then rose.