TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22.

Grey River Argus, Volume IX, Issue 640, 24 February 1870, Page 2

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22.

(Before W. H. Revell, Esq., R.M.) D. Delanty and P. O'Shannessy were charged with fighting and committing a breach of the peace in a public thoroughfare. Fined 10s each. CIVIL CASES. Judgments by default with costs were given in the following cases — Dupre and Kensch v. Robert Card, L 3 9s ; Howie v. George Howie, L 8 5s ; Strike and Black more v. Munro, L 2 5s ; Same v. Devery, L 3 6a ; Same v. Constantine, Ll 4s ; Guinness v. Rica, 3L5 4. « The case of Howie v. Smith, was adjourned for a week; and Cockburn v. Graham, to Thursday next. Baldry v. Beelan ; fraud summons ; claim of Ll 15s. Judgment for plaintiff, one pound per week to be paid, or in de.fa.ult 14 days' imprisonment. Peters v. Johnston. — Claim of L 3. Verdict for amount claimed and costs. White v. M'Kenna and party; — Wrong service of summons. •O'Dowdv. Egan.— Claim of Lo 19 7d. Judgment confessed. . Boyd Thomson v. M'Lennan. — Claim of L 4 1125, the price of 26 sheep, sold four years ago at the Greenstone. Nonsuited. M'Lennan v. Boyd Thomson.— Claim of LOO, for loss of services and price of dog. Verdict for defendant with costs. In the first of these two actions complainant stated that four years ago he and one Giddy agreed to go mates in the purchase and sale of a mob of sheep, and that the defendant got 26 of these, amounting to L 42 12s. Immediately after purchasing them defendant disposed of them, and was leaving the coast for Christcliurch. Upon hearing this the plaintiff followed , him on the road, and demanded j his money; to which the defendant replied that he had none, but that he would give him a promissory note (now sued upon) and an order to receive a mare and foal that was running } on Angus M'Donald's statioji on the Selwyn. After having givjng these the defendant did not return to the coast fifteen months, and upon application being made to -him on his rotnrn for a settlement, he refused to do so. The sheep were not sold by the plaintiff, nor were they delivered by him.

They were said to be sold by one Giddy, and delivered by Con.- Spanlan. The money was ordered by Giddy to be paid into Thomson's shop. From enquiries made at, the station at the Selwyn, he found there never was any mare or foal there. — The defence was : Tnat M'Lennan on his return to the coast wished to pay the amount of the promissory note, and on being asked for it by Thomson was willing to do so, but wanted the sale note for the horse in addition to the promissory note. That Thomson had not the sale note, having given it to Giddy, who had previously told him (defendant) not to pay money to Thomson. That he had never seen the mare and foal, having taken over the sale note from a man named Fergusson, and that he was still willing to pay the amounted both notes were forthcoming (Qriddy is in Queensland). Plaintiff accepted the nonsuit, in order to procure the attendance of Mr Scanlan. The second case partly arose upon the I proceedings of the first, and were to the following effect : — That Mr Lennan on his return to the Coast brought a valuable 1 sheep dog, and as he was digging at the Greenstone, and had no immediate use for him, he lent him to a man named Robertson, who was staying at Thomson's. Some time after this Robertson left Thomson's, the dog remaining at the defendant's ' shop, when, he being tied up, was one day observed . ,l>y the plaintiff there who claimed ownership, and according to the testimony of Thomson and two other witnesses sold the dog to tlie defendant for LlO, to be deducted from the sheep account. This sale he afterwards tried to evade, but the mass of evidence was strongly against him, and the Magistrate consequently dismissed the case. Evan Prosser v. John Tucker. of LIOO damages for not accounting for and furnishing a statement of accounts received by defendant while acting as plaintiff's agent. Mr Newton for plaintiff, Mr Perkins for defendant. John Tucker deposed : I was manager for Mr Prosser in Greymouth for nearly three years. I was empowered by him to act for him in all business matters, holding his power of attorney for the same. The paper producsd is the instrument under which I acted. I never had a settlement with Mr Prosser, but I went through the books with him when he was here last time. A lisb of accounts was made out. The copy produced is. in Mr Prosser's writing. I kept Mr Prosser's books here, and after he closed his business I agreed to collect his accounts upon the terms mentioned in his letter. Ido know Mr Prosser's signature. I have known it for nearly threa years. I won't swear to this signature being his. It -looks very like it — (letter produced.) I have seen this letter before. 1 made no objection to the signature then. ■ I won't swear to it now. I have never seen Mr Prosser sign his name. I will net swear it is his signature, because I did not see him sign it. In: regular business matters 1 would accept that signature as correct, but when it would have to be used in law 1 would require to have the signature witnessed. The letter is to yon (Mr Newton) withdrawing my power of attorney. I have received letters from you previously, requesting a : statement of accounts collected, and I j have seen you several times about the I same. I cannot say how many times you have called, but when you have done so I was always too busy to make them out. I have always said 1 would render you an account, and have promised to give one. I don't remember promising any particular time. When you last asked me you said you would wait no longer than Tuesday. 1 received your summons on Saturday. When I went to Melbourne I handed the books and the power of attorney over to Mr Guinness, solicitor. Mr Prosser had previously asked me to hand over the books to Mr Williams. I did not comply with the request. I promised to render you an account, but after consulting with my solicitor I did not do so. You had threatened me with legal proceedings. Mr Newton, for the defence, said he was reluctantly compelled to appear here as cuunsel and witness, but as the defendant had given a wrong coloring to some of his conversations with him, he had no other course than to give evidence personally. The damages sued for, or such amount as may be awarded, are only to be levied in case the statement of accounts is not rendered. Being sworn, he said : In consequence of receiving this letter — (letter produced) — from Mr Prosser withdrawing Mr Tudker's powers to act as attorney for Mr Prosser, I wrote a letter to Mr Tucker and handed it to him, which I think he opened in my presence, and then promised me to have the account asked for made out. On his neglecting to do so I kept calling with no other effect than receiving promises that it would be rendered, as he sometimes said, on that day. I have called six or seven times. He on two or three occasions specified a fixed time to render me the account. I told him I would have to lake proceedings against him if he did not. Finally he said after consulting with his solicitor, he would like to see my authority. I showed it to him. lam willing to believe that he did misunderstand my words on last Saturday, which may have led him to believe that he had till Tuesday allowed Mm to render the statement, but I certainly meant that the summons would I c heard on Tuesday, as Saturday was the last day of service. The Magistrate, in summing up, dismissed the case on the ground that the defendant had in all probability been misled as to the ultimate date at which he was to render his statement of accounts received.