SUPREME COURT, WELLINGTON. FRIDAY, MARCH 7, 1845. Before H. S. Chapman, Judge. Murray v. Fyfe.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume I, Issue 25, 29 March 1845, Page 3

SUPREME COURT, WELLINGTON. FRIDAY, MARCH 7, 1845. Before H. S. Chapman, Judge. Murray v. Fyfe.

This was an action to recover the balance of an account amounting to £108. The defendant pleaded payment. It appeared from the evidence, that the plaintiff and defendent had had certain whaling .dealings together, and when they were brought to a close, a balance was agreed upon as due from Fyfe to Murray amounting to £200. Messrs. Waitt and Tyser were the agents of Fyfe, and by his own order had paid to an agent of Murray a sum of £75 6s. Bd., which reduced the balance to £124 13s. 4d. When the accounts had arrived at this state, Murray took Mr. John Wade to Messrs. Waitt and Tyser, and instructed them "to peirait Mr. Wade to take the balance out in goods suitable to the whaling station," informing them also that Mr. Wade was authorized to settle his account with Fyfe. Under this authority the whole balance was carried to Wade's credit, and Fyfe's debit in Waitt & Co.'s books. Wade gave cash orders on Waitt & Co. amounting to £16 13s. 4d., which were admitted in the particulars, and which reduced the balance to the amount now claimed. It was in evidence that Mr. Wade had selected goods amounting to £§5 155., which he stated were on his own account and not on Murray's. Against this his own receipt was produced, purporting that he had received them on account of Murray. Mr. Wade swore that the words were not in when he signed the receipt. Mr. Waters, clerk to Messrs. Waitt & Co., swore they were. There was space for the words of the receipt;,' and "the learned Judge left it for the Jury to say whether that space did not favor the presumption that Mr. Waters was right. This was also confirmed by other testimony. There was a great deal of conflicting evidence as to the state of the account between Wade and Waitt and Tyser, and it was proved that the defendant had been recredited with £108 by Messrs Waitt & Co.'s Trustees. The Jury gave a verdict for plaintiff, £12 ss. (being the difference between the sum claimed and the price of the goods proved to be furnished to Mr. Wade.) Mr. Holroyd appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Hanson for the defendant.