DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2606, 14 August 1882, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

OHBISTO H U BOH.

Monday, August 14. [Before Hie Honor Judge Ward.] KBLSBY V AHBTHY AHD AHOTHHB. Mr Stringer addressed hie Honor, and stated that the parties to this oase had consented to judgment being entered for £lsl Is 8d andooets. Mr Button had agreed to be here but was noti But he had consented to this arrangement on behalf of his clients. Judgment entered up accordingly. HAII, Y THOMAS AHD BBT/083, This was an action for £l2O, monoy had and received.

Mr Joyce for plaintiff, Mr George Harper for defendant.

Mr Joyce stated the oase, and called the following evidence : Thomas Connon stated that he was the proprietor of the hotel at Little Akaloa in June last, that be had told the defendants he was anxious to sell his hotel for £2OO. He went with plaintiff to defendants' office on Jnne 27th, in consequence of on arrangement made with his agent, Mr F. W. Hales, of the Standard Brewery Company. It was understood that the plaintiff was to take possession on payment of £l2O ; it being agreed certain articles on the premises were to be removed by witness. Plaintiff then paid £l2O to Messrs Thomas and Bruges, for whioh a receipt was given. The last three words, " or his mortgagees," were not read to him, nor did he agree thereto. All the other words in the reoeipt were read to him. [Receipt produoed.] Witness L and plaintiff returned to_ Little Akaloa next morning, where the articles reserved were shown him, as agreed to by letter produced. [Letter read.] As the monoy was not paid to witness he refused to give possession. Witness returned to Christchurch, and saw Mr Bruges, and arranged a meeting for the next day, when he requested that gentleman to bank the £l2O to the oredit of three of witness's creditors. Mr Hales was present at tbe interview, and told witness he had undertaken certain obligations on his behalf, of whioh he knew nothinz. Witness filed a declaration of insolvency about three weeks after this interview. His wife had oharge of the hotel up to a few days before he filed. At present the trustees in witneea'e estate had possession of the hotel. Mr Bruges refused to pay the £l2) to the oredit of oeitain creditors as asked, or to give any amount of it. Cross-examined by Mr Harper—On 28th June he owed about £2OO, and was proved by some of bis creditors. He authorised Mr Hales to sell the hotel on his behalf by letter. [Produced.] Did not authorise Mr Hales to pay his creditors out of the proceeds. An agreement was drawn up and signed by Mr Hall and Mr Hales. Witness also eigned the agreement. The receipt for the £l2O was drafted by Goodman, and afterwards altered and re-written by Mr Bruges. But the words "Or his mortgagees," if inserted therein, were not read to him. The assignment of lease and transfer of license was signed before witcees left Ohristchuroh. Mr Hall never took possession of the hotel. As possession was contingent on the way in which matters were settled in Ohristohurob, witness believed Mr Bruges thought Mr Hall was in possession. Up to this time he had no solicitor, but subsequently employed Mr MoOonnel.

A. E. Hall, the plaintiff, deposed—He sa w Mr F. W. Hales on the 26th June, and went with him to the office of Messrs Thomas and Bruges, where it was arranged that he should take Dossession on June 29th. He had no solicitor. He signed the agreement. On the following day he met Mr Oonnon in Messrs Thomas and Bruges' ofHoe, when the transfer was signed. At first he was going to pay a deposit of £3O, then £so} but Mr Bruges and Mr Hales persuaded him to pay the £l2O. At first he demurred, but was afterwards persuaded. A receipt was given by Mr Bruges, which was read over, but he did not remember the last three words. Ho did not get the deeds transferring the property. Nothing was said as to who was to pay the costs. [The rest of this witness' evidenoe was oorroborative of tfcat given by the previous witness.] Mr Bruges refused to refund the money. Cross-examined by Mr Harper—He never had possession. Did not tell Mr Bruges he had been turned out of possession by Oonnon. He looked at the furniture and stock of the hotel, and was satisfied therewith. He wrote a note to Messrs Thomas and Bruges saying he was prepared to take possession. He did not aot in any capacity at the hotel during his stay. The reason of his stay was because no steamer was available. Connon positively declined to give him possession, and he then asked Connon to give him a note to Messrs Thomas and Bruges to that effect.

Mary Ann Oonnon, wife of the first witness, deposed that Hall never had possession of the hotel.

Mary Fraud's, general servant, corroborated the evidence of the last witness.

Mr Harper argued at length to prove that he was entitled to a nonsuit.

Bruges deposed that he wan owner in fee of the land on which the hotel stood. Mr F. W. Hales called with the plaintiff at his office on June 26th. On the following day they came again with Gocnon and the £l2O was paid, and possession was to be given on the 28th June. The plaintiff was to write and say if he would cake possession, after which he was to pay the money to Oonnon or his exeoution creditors, viz.—£7o or £BO to Standard Brewery Co., and £lO to another. He read over the whole of tho receipt to both Oonnon and Hall. It had bsen previously arranged between witness and Oonnon that these exeoution oreditora should be paid. After a day or two Oonnon came and demanded payment of the £l2O, but witness referred him to Mr Hales, asking at the same time if Hall had taken possession, who replied that he had. He transferred the money to Mr Hale's account, in pursuance of the authority from Oonnon to Hales. Hall catno into the office a few days after in an excited state, and said he wanted his money back, as he had been turned out of possession by Oonnon. Witness advised him to return and retake possession, but he declined saying ho had had enough of it, and wanted the money back, which witness refused. Ten days after Hall called again, and said he had never had possession. Oross-examinod by Mr Joyce—He expected the purohaaer to pay him the foea for preparation of transfer. I« a shareholder in tho Standard Brewery Company. The monies were to be paid when he reooived a letter stating that Hall was satisfied, and Oonnon had told him that Hall had taken possession. To His Honor —The monies were transferred in our books to Hales' credit on the 29th June. There was no actual pnyment. There was no assurance from plaintiff that i possession was taken, and the agreement said that it WR6 to be paid when possession was taken. F. W. Hales, manager of the StacdaTd Brewery Company, deposed that he had ; tnken out an execution against Oonuor for £BO. (Witness detailed the transactions in Messrs Thomas and Bruges' offioe as to the purchase of the hotel. Connor distinctly told him that Hall was satisfied, and had taken possession, and had agreed to everything. By Mr Harper—He authorised Mr Bruges to pay away the money received from Hall so far as his control was concerned. To his Honor —The money was to bo paid when Hall wrote that ho was satisfied. By Mr Joyce—He had received £BO from Messrs Thomas and Bruges, about £4O of which had been sued for. Mr Hall recalled—He went to Little Akaloa about a week previously to the transactions, when he got an idea of purchasing the hotel; Connor having shown him the books, and referred to an inventory of goods. By Mr Joyoe—He first signed the deed, and afterwards paid the money. He did not order any beer from Mr Hales, and afterwards Hales told him he was a fcol to leave the plaoe, as he understood from the latter that witness had possession. Cornelius Sexton was called by Mr Harper, but gave no material evidence. Mr Joyoe re-called Mr Connon, who stated that he took up the transfer from Mr Bruges' table, remarking that it wao useless, as he should not give possession. By Mr Harper—lt was not on the 27th but on the 29th of June that he took up the transfer. He signed four transfers. Mr Harper re-called Mr Bruges, who swore that the transfer paper was handed by him to Mr Connon on the 27th June for the purpose of getting signatures thereto in Little Akaloa. Cross-examined —It was dated on the 28th, because that was the day on whiah Hall was to take possession.

Learned counsel having addressed the Court, . ~, . His Honor gave judgment for plaintiff lor £7O. ' "

The eases Ford and Ogdon v Hutchinson and Fnhrman t Holmes were adjourned for one month. The Court then rose.