Magistrate’s Court.

Hokitika Guardian, 12 August 1922, Page 2

Magistrate’s Court.

GREYMOTjTH, Aug 9.

E. G. Lynch, Mark Sprot and Co. v. Graham and Pritchard. This was a. claim for £44 11s for goods sold and delivered. As only one of the defendants (Graham) was served, the case was proceeded with against him alone. Mr Hannan for plaintiff called J. I). Lynch, who stated that after he had assigned his estate to trustees, his son, the plaintiff commenced a new business under the style of Mark Sprot and Co., and the goods were sold by the new firm. The fact that the plaintiff hal commenced the new business was fully advertised in both the Greymouth and Hokitika papers. Mr Graham, the defendant, stated that he had ordered- the goods, be liering Mr J. D. Lynch to bo carrying on the new business. Before ordering the goods, he had consulted Mr Murdoch, and it Was on his advice he had given the order. There were moneys due to his firm from the old firm of Mark Sprot and Co., and he considered he would set off the price ! of the goods against the old account. On cross-examination, Graham aamitted that lie knew of the assignment, and had consulted the trustees of Lynch estate in reference to his account before he ordered the goods from the new firm. f Mr Paterson, for defendant, quoted authorities in support of contention that as defendant considered he was dealing with J. D. Lynch, trading L Mark Sprot and Co and not with the nresent plaintiff, there was no contract between plaintiff andl defendant. and plaintiff could not therefore

ie Mr°Hannan contended that defend,„t having received the goods, must pav’ far them, unless there was proof SJ the defendant had been induced to* buy the goods by a tion that he was dealing nith < ■ •Lvach. His own admissions that \ knew of the assignment and had co suited his solicitor showed he wa^ful. aware of the change m the ‘ The Magistral, in admission as to his knowledge of the . assignment and his having taken legal showed he knew of the change m the Hrm and that he had apparently in tentiohally set out endeavour to snuare hi s account with the d by ordering goods from t e ne-n • Graham and Johnston v. J- ULynch—This was a. claim for £B7, be i,ig the amount claimed to be owing i )V g the old firm of Mark Sprot, as mentioned in the previous case. After legal argument, as to hon the_ tel life* ° , i particulars claim was made up, ancl parr not being given as required by rules of Court, the hearing " ad jour tied one week for . defendant furnish details. . ..