RESIDENT MAGISTSATES’ COURT.

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume II, Issue 170, 5 November 1880, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTSATES’ COURT.

Blenheim, Wednesday, Nov. 3. (Before 11. Mclntiro, Esq., R.M]. W. CLARK V. ir. OLIVER. This was an adjourned case. The defendant is a mate on board the ship St. Leonards, and about 12 months ago undertook verbally to pay to Mr Clark, of the Club Hotel LI2 2s. for board and lodging supplied to defendant’s brother. Mr Sinclair appeared for plaintiff and Mr Rogers for defendant. The defendant, who is in Wellington, pleaded that he was not indebted to plaintiff, and never, verbally or otherwise, promised to pay his brother’s debt to Sir Clark. M illiam Clark deposed—l am landlord of the Club Hotel, and know defendant, who is an oilicer on board the ship St. Leonards. The board and lodging were supplied to Arthur Oliver, defendant’s brother, who was staying at the hotel in September and October, 1579, and became ill, and requested 1:0 be removed to the hospital. I took some trouble with Dr Cleghorne and other authorities at the hospital and got him into it. His brother Hugh Oliver came over from Wellington, and promised to pay me or see me paid. He did so on two occasions, once here and once in Wellington. The amount now sued for was due and owing before Hugh Oliver came over here. The promise was not in writing. I did not think it necessary. Oliver’s father is reputed to be a man worth L2OOO a year and I thought it would be all right. If Hugh Oliver had not promised to pay his brother’s debt, I could have got paid, as Arthur Oliver had property, a horse, etc., which I could have seized. The amount due has not been paid. The charges are the usual charges for board and residence at the hotel. Mr Rogers submitted that plaintiff must be non-suited. The Statute of Frauds provided that no action could be brought on a promise not in writing to pay the debt of another ; the agreement must be reduced to writing and be signed by the party to be charged therewith or by his agent. Mr Sinclair submitted that Mr Clark could recover. If ever there was a case in which the “ equity and good conscience ” clause applied, this was one. Mr Clark could have sued Arthur Oliver and recovered, but the litter being sick, Mr Clark refrained from suing him, on Hugh Oliver agreeing to become his debtor, and the forbearance from suing was certainly a consideration. As regarded costs, he trusted, in the event of the Court being against him on the non-suit point, that his Worship would deal as lightly with the plaintiff as possible. Plaintiff, he urged, wa3 at any rate entitled to costs up to the time of the adjournment. The Court reserved judgment until Mon, day next,