CIVIL SITTINGS.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XV, Issue 124, 25 May 1880, Page 2

CIVIL SITTINGS.

A. Adams and P. Adams v. Wheeler. Action to recover £80 10s for services rendered and cash expended in pursuance of an alleged agreement with the defendant to supply information to the Mercantile Gazette. The defence was that the defendant had never retained or employed the plaintiffs to perform the work, and was not indebted to them. : Mr Acton Adams appeared for .the plaintiffs, and Mr Fell for the defendant. A jury of four was sworn, consisting of the following gentlemen; — Messrs Stephen Avery (foremau), Alfred Allport, Frederick Aydon, and William Astle. Mr Acton Adams, in opening the case, said that the amount he was sneing for was for searching in the Supreme Court for particulars of securities filed, and reporting them for the Mercantile Gazette. An account had been rendered to the defendant in 1876, and he had paid it, and he had in 1877 given his acceptance for £52 13s 4d, and, all through, the accounts had been rendered to him, arid he had never raised any objection, but now he said that Mr G. B. Barton, who was recently struck off the rolls, was the responsible person.

Mr Batchelor, accountant for Messrs Adams and Kingdon, stated that the accounts had been rendered to Mr Wheeler in June and September, 1878, and in March, 1879. The previous accounts had been rendered to Mr Barton. The work had been done regularly every week, and a clerk had attended at , the Registrar's office for the purpose of searching. Mr Wheeler had paid one account by cheque and another by an acceptance at three months, on the 15th June, 1 878. Cross-examined * The accounts were sent in to Mr Barton prior to Mr Wheeler's acceptance on June, 1878, when the natfle in our ledger was changed from Barton to Wheeler. Re-examined : I have never seen any objection raised by Mr Wheeler to the accounts being seut to liim Until lately. This concluded the case for tbe plaintiff:. Mr Fell, in opening for the defence, said that Barton, who was primarily responsible, having left tho country, it was clear that either Adams or Wheeler must lose his money. It was merely an attempt on the part of Messrs Adams and Kingdon to recover from Wheeler what they could not get from Barton, who was the editor of the Gazette, and appeared in the imprint bb proprietor up to January, 1880, Wheeler being only thc publisher. This action was brought under a contract between Barton and Adams, but oddly euough the correspondence was not produced. (Mr Adams : I will produce it if you like ) Mr Adams admitted that the contract was with Mr Barton to the effect that the work should he done for him aud paid for by him, but suddenly he turned round and sued Wheeler, the only excuse being that he had given his promissory note. After that date Messrs Adams and Kingdon's clerk altered the name in the ledger from Barton to Wheeler. The whole series of accounts had beeu sent to Barton. In 1878 Mr Adams had no notion of [charging Wheeler, as he wrote to Barton pressing for payment. Mr Wheeler had paid some of the accounts, but only upon receiving instructions to do so from Barton. Adam3 and Kingdon had since 1878 sent the accounts to bim, but the mere delivery of accounts would not make tho party to whom they were sent responsible. He then called R. T. Wheeler, who said that he was the publisher of the Gazette at Dunedin, which was started in 1876. Mr Barton was the proprietor and editor,"and on his behalf he (Wheeler) carried on the business, paying accounts as the funds admitted. On the 15th November, 1876, he wrote to Adams and Kingdon covering a cheque, and on the 14th May, 1878, Barton, who was in Wellington, sent Adams' letter asking for payment of £52 13s 4d, endorsed with a request that he would send his acceptance for the amount, which, in accordance with that request, he did, and in due course he received the account rendered to Barton settled by the promissory note. The accounts were always sent to Barton, who forwarded them to the witness with instructions attached. Adams' accouuts were tbe only ones sent to him. The first letter he received asking for payment was in December, 1879, to which he replied through his solicitor. All the other agents had given way in this matter, and he had not paid others and left the Nelson agents unpaid. Cro3s examined: Since 1877 he had done all the publishing business, and received all the money, with which he had paid the agents. Barton had drawn very heavily. He had agreed with Barton to pay the expenses as far as the funds went. The paper was still going on, but there was a heavy mortgage on it. The account on which the present action was brought had never been sent to Barton, who had always been proprietor, although his name never appeared in the imprint until March 1879. At the time he sent the acceptance he was out of funds, but he did so at Barton's request. Ever since then the plaintiffs sent their accounts to him, but he never took any particular notice of that, as they were always shown to Barton. He had never mentioned to plaintiffs any agreement between Barton and himself until after the proceedings had been commenced. The expenses ou the paper were still very heavy, and he feared ifc would be a long time before it paid, but he meant to stick to it and do his best, as ho had already sunk £1000 in it. Plaintiffs should have rendered their accounts to Barton, and he (witness) had never given instructions to them to alter the name in their ledger. This concluded the evidence, 'and counsel having addressed the jury, his Honor summed up, aDd the jury, after a short absence, returned a verdict for the defendant with coats £18 19s.