RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT MATAURA.

Mataura Ensign, Volume 6, Issue 309, 30 November 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT MATAURA.

Wednesday, 28th November' ; (Before H. M'Culloch, Esq., R.M.) UNDEFENDED CIVXL, Ol»ES. Dolamore y. 0, W. H. Gower, late treasurer Wyndham Caledonian Society— Claim, L 5 i-7s. Mr Henderson for plaintiff, for whom judgment was given with LI 12s costs, W. Pollock v. Q. Jfishenden-^Olaim L 4 Is. Mr Hpnders.qn fox plaintiff, for whom there was judgment with 14s 6d costs, Same y: Collins— Claim L3l4a6d. Judg-, ment for plaintiff (lor whom Mr Henderson appeared) with LI ]2s 6d costs. Dolamore v. W. Taylor— Claim 16s. For ; plaintiff, with 17s 6d costs. Mr Henderson for plaintiff. Smaill and Brown v. M'Neil— Claim L2l 11s on two. promissory notes. For plaintiffs, represented, by Mr Fletcher, with L3=7s ! costs, 'J JUDGMENT SUMMONS. France v. Hunter— Claita L3O ss3d. Mr Fletcher for plaintiff. Mr Henderson, for , deft-n 'unf, contended that reasonable expenses .-ihaul ' h w-c baen tendered to-lris client to enable him 1 .0 a tend Court, This, had not been done. lIU \Yo.?<ship agreed with Mr Henderson, and adjournqd the case io Goro. . " DiWBON V. M'INTYKE. The hearing of this case, partly gone into at Gore, was resumed, Mr Stewart appearing for plaintiff, and Mr Henderson with him Mr Aldridge for defendant. L. T. Symes deposed. ; I am. manager of the Bank of Australasia at Gordon. I know Pattispn, Miliftyre and Simson,. Rod© aver %o. Pattison c -s with Simson I think on the day before Patbison's flr§t meeting of creditors at,Clinton, Pattfsan at that time owed Mr Simson money ; 1 had a bill of Pattison's in favor of Mr fcimsou. under discount at the time/ Could not remember the exact words that x i passed at the visit to Pattison's ; but Pattison gave mo an T.O.U. in trust for Mr Simson. Its amount was L 56 10s. and jit was from M'lntyre to Pa,tt\so;n, I believe the words . cm it were—'* I.Q.U Robert Pattison, senr., LS6 10s. Ales. M<lntyre." I was to do nothing with the 1.0.U beyond holding it for Mr Simson. The effect of the conversation at the time I met Pattison was ; I asked Pattison why ho was calling a meeting of his creditors, seeing that he had given me a statement about six weeks previously, showing himself to be perfectly solvent, and it. was on the strength of this statement that X advised Simson to take Pa.Uison\3 biU. Ho said he had lobj; on, grain and stock. . I asked him if ha had not sold oortain 'goods -forfor which he held, an LO.U. or something in payineut, Ho denied it at first but afterwards he admitted he had and gave me the 1.0.U,. ■remarking that it w.'S in trust to meet Mr Sirason's bill that I held under discount. Simson said M'lntyre was to pay thp amount of the 1.0. U. to him unless he authorised 1 him to pay, it to we. I am not aware that: anything was said about Simson taking a bill from M< lutjre for the I O.U, M'lntyre I believe subsequently called on me in the ordinary way of business, but I do not re* m.embev the date. He paid me the amount o| the 1.0.U by bill, but do not know whether that had been met- or not, as Sim-i son took it away. Held the 1.0.U probably for six or seven daysjbef ore M? Intyre gavejtlitf bill.— To Mr Stewart : I knew of the exr/ : tence of the 1.0. U. from information received from M'lntyre. When "with Simsoh I visited Pattison's we we?e, talking with him for abp.ut 20 minutes, .There, wag rq bullying^ but' PatUson shammed to faint; I swear I did' not threaten him with gaol, and have no reoolleotion of Simson doing so. We were on the point of leaving when Pattison called, us back and gave me the 1.0. U. It was not given through fear. At the time oi the conversation I knew Pa.ttjsan bad called a meetIng pf h,ia creditors, which was to be held the following day. Could not say why the 1.0. U. was not given direct to Simson. Did not re« collect telling M'lntyre that Pattisqn authorised me to collect this money from him. -Told M'lntyre the X.O.ty. would be in reduction of Simson's bill. Had a" conversation JDawgon after the meetiug at which $pbto,r applied for his order of discharge, and complained that Pattison had made untrue statements which tended to damage me in the. place. I told Dawson thai .l believed Simson held the 1.0. U .; yfill n.ot swear I did not tell Dawson \ held, the 1.0. U. then for Simsojb. Made fob 'proposal to Dawson as to *Wt}iii£ fae jitter, M'lQtyre bad '

bill for the 1.0. U. before Pattison filed. Gave M'lutyre the 1;0.1J.,0h receipt of the bill, and it was then 'destroyed. Sinason had an account at the Bank of Australasia. I. S. isirason : I remember visiting Pat* tison's with SymesV This was two days before the private meeting at Clinton and three weeks before Pattison filed. . When we ' got to. ©taria I asked Paterson if he was &oing to settle my bill asVrhad keard hg was going " crooked." Ho _^ said.' he was going-'td' corivene a meeting of .feJH creditors and that he' would pay 20s in the &. Having a hint that an LO.U. waa in existence, and seeing that a swindle was being perpetrated, I a--ked him about it. He denied'havrag it,~ going *on- his bended Jtneea- «r»and calling on his Maker while he 6aid this. . Told him he was a liar. .WLen we were > leaving, he called us back, and handed an 1.0. U. to Symes,layfng that "it was lo'm'eet ■""■ Simson 'b bill, and that h« hoped we would do him no harm for not telling of the LO.U. ■before." Symes took it, and it was ultimately applied in payment of a bill I held of ML'intyre's.. No threats were used by Symes ; but 1 told Pattisbn that if he did,, not disgorge L would give him seven year» in gaol \ if 1 could. Was present at the, creditors' .' meeting 'at'Clinf on," ab~out eleven' dS?3 before ~■• ■ ' which the goods now. in dispute werq aold \,j Pattison to M'intyre.— To Mr btewftrt: I deny having bounced Patereon. I did not see him faint. He said " I want a. drink of water ; 1 "feel faint." Did not prove my ; debt for the informal^ meeting atUlinton; but at the first statutory meeting I did, swearing a declaration £o the effect that I had received no satisfaction, and that I held no security whatever. Did not tell Patti-ie?* fier the Olinton meeting to keep h^ jk counsel-and would come out right. ? His' Worship ' held that plaintiff was " eutitled to recover only L 9 15s 2d, being about the difference- between* the amount of the 1.0. U. and the actual value of the goods •sold; He was awarded also L 5 10s costs. SH-ANKS -AND BARR V. T. POLLOCK. • : Claim, L 43, en a bill dishonored,, made by W. Pollock and. endorsed by-.-T. Pollock. Mr Aldridge for plaintiffs and Mr Henderson for defendant^ ,wh.o pled he had not received the necessary notice ' of dishouor' : and 'that he was released from his endorm;- --; ment by a subsequent transaction. James Barr proved the siguature of the maker dfjthe bill,, and, that of thtf; eudoruer was admitted. It was due on Novem14th, and on presentation was dishonored. Saw T. Pollock, who paid L4O "on account of the bill of LB3. Made no pro- * mise as to the balance, for which, however, he had not denied liability. . Later on, however, he .fca^d, he ) would. not pay without »-.; "-showing the firm up.* ! To Mr Heriddwon : ' r 'The L4O was paid to wjtness, who deducted it from a cheque of Sh'ahks and Barr's, held by the defendant. It was on account of the bill, and. T,. Ppjlpck told witness that he had made aricangementa.lwSth; fihaakßttolakft .»>! bill; of sale over W. Pollock's furniture, and jHsnew the balance of the bill for three ■mbnths. .Sent no... notice; in writing pi thcr^ dishonor to Hf T. Pollock, who) however, \ must havebeen aware of it; "' .? - .V >» •*-. f jj. -Pollocks .deposed that he. earr , JJhanks *,«■ abdut. fourteen #ays ; before the bill was due.'. if! Shanks 'said he did' not think" it would Be'^H met, an*! wanted to dddubt it from a chequer^ .he had to give witness... To, this theia^er . ;%: r demurred, saying it would be time enough *t» : ' ' speak of the payment "Wh"e"n the bill wm ?, dishonor*!^ ■■"Again' sawi him tihe.d&y.thej3ill -$& was due, and as he was owing his son LSS asked Shanks to clear him' of the bill if he gave him a chedue for this ! L3tf. " No, 1 ' said .Shanks ; "if you give me L6O, I'll take your ■ son for,the balance." Ultimately agreed to.^ ... giye %L L4d, which. Shanks- accepted/ The;'"- • balance was a matter of arrangement between W. Pollock, and, Shanks and Barr, day cameto Matauhftb deposit Shanks .and Barr's cheque for*Llooo, received on account of T. and J. Pollock 4 when one oi ■ the firm told^hiin-it wouldfee djshonowl* -V' " For what?" He aske4&*» Till the LBsi^ - -paid for that bill," was- the reply. Said it ; was asi range, transaction". "Ongoing to the Bank, presented the cheque for LIJ3OO, which was "referred tordi^wets." _ Told tha fifja j, that he had given a cheque for L 250 in Ihvercargill, on the ; strength" of the largo one being cashed, and that they would be in ft pecttk^2-L liar posi4on if tHfeirs did not go through alk? right. Barr ultimately agreed to simply L4O, and tie cheque then pasaod^ through the Bank all right. Knew w. Pol- *$ lock's bill had been dishonored, because bis „ .^* son told him so. His Worship— Supposing he did tuako tbf3 - v .agreement with Shanks, where was the con-.^ ,sideration? Some muat be shown. ' • :: * Mr Henderson admitted there waa ru>%g t /A as .between defendant' and plaintifts,- bat astime had been give'nf to the maker t>f the bill the surety would be released, - 7 W. Pollock deposed to the agreement made*' Shanks, which was to the effect thai" part of the bill was to be renewed on the understanding that security would be given, v~ Jas, Pollock gave evidence regarding the. LIOOO cheque to T. and j. Pollock. Subse- ~ qaently Shanks led him to understand that T. Pollock was clear of the bill after paying L4O ; the balance to be secured by a bill of sale over W. Pollock's effects. • . '. '• ,\ '■' ■Mr Henderson submitted that the agree- f -•' ment made between Shanks and W, £ollbck . wa]s 9, binding agreement and that "thereby • T. Pollock wa3 released from liability. »•. Ha quoted from Byles. on Bills pi .Exchanges . iv support of his contention. His IVorship would reserve his decision until, next :Court ; - day at Gor,e l# . anxt befor^t . A giving it would eiamine^r Shanls.' '* '■" ' : ~ I " The Court then rose,the only other business ~ decided having been the awarding,' of costs •in 'a case in which, payment of the ambunfc' {claimed had been made^Jjut no provision for the. cost of the summons or solicitor's fee. • Judgment was therefore given for costs, 17s . 6d.