COURT OF APPEAL.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5196, 16 November 1877, Page 4

COURT OF APPEAL.

Thursday, November 15.

(Before their Honors the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Richmond, and Mr. Justice Gillies.)

KEID V. DOUGLAS.

Hr. Macaasy and Mr. Cook appeared for the appellant, and Hr. Stout for the respondeut. This was an appeal from a judgment pronounced by Mr. Justice Williams at Dunedin, upon the argument adduced before him in the Supreme Court, of a special case stated under section 100 of the Resident Magistrates Act, 1867, on an action in the Resident Magistrate's Court, Dunedin, in which the present appellant was the plaintiff, and respondent the defendant. The plaintiff sued the defendant for the recovery of £B4 9s. Bd. on a bill of exchange accepted by the plaintiff at the request and for the accommodation of the defendant, and paid by plaintiff at maturity at the Bank of New South Wales. The plaintiff also sought to recover interest on the amount so paid. The appellant was the manager of a mining company named the Perseverance Quartzmining Company, registered, and the respondeat was a shareholder and director of the company. The company kept a bank account with the Bank of New South Wales, Dunedin, and in September 1874 had an overdraft of £B4 9s, Bd., and the manager was pressing for payment. The appellant called on the respondent in reference to the matter, and the latter, on the understanding that the appellant would meet the bill, accepted it, and it was paid into the bank, the proceeds being placed to the credit of the company. Before the bill matured, the respondent called several times on the appel-

lant, who said he would get the money before the time was up. The appellant had not paid the respondent before March, 1875, although he had previously promised to do so, when the respondent, who was about to proceed to Melbourne, called on him and asked him to settle. He could not raise the money that day, but said he would pay the amount into the bank to the credit of the respondent, who had an account there. On the respondent’s return he found that the money had not been paid. On again applying to the appellant for payment he refused, and claimed the amount as due by the respondent for calls on shares in the company held by him. The respondent disputed the correctness of the claim made by the appellant on behalf of the company, and did not pay the calls made on him, amounting to £IOO 18s. The affairs of the company were put in liquidation, the appellant being the liquidator. The other directors had not paid their calls. The Resident Magistrate gave judgment for £Bl 9s. Bd., with costs. The question was then raised whether the decision of the magistrate was right in point of law. On the 16th August, 1876, Mr. Justice Williams ordered that the appeal from the decision of the Resident Magistrate be allowed, and that his decision be reversed. Leave was subsequently granted to appeal to this Court, and the question to be decided by their Honors was whether or not the judgment now appealed from, reversing the decision of the Resident Magistrate, was right in point of law. The Court reserved judgment. BUNN v. m’gavin. (Before their Honors the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Johnston, and Mr. Justice Gillies.) This was an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Williams on a case stated under sections 102 and 103 of the District Court Act, 1858, in an action in the Dunedin District Court in which the present respondent was plaintiff and the appellant was defendant. The action was for work and materials supplied by plaintiff for certain contracts in which it was alleged defendant was a copartner. The District Court Judge pronounced in favor of plaintiff for £129 19s. Id. and costs. An appeal from this judgment was argued before Mr. Justice Williams on the X7th August last, and dismissed, with costs. The present appellant then gave notice of appeal to this Court against the judgment of Mr. Justice Williams. The question at issue was whether or not the judgment of Mr. Justice Williams against the decision of the District Court Judge, and refusing to send the case back to him for amendment, was right in point of law. Mr. Cook and Mr. Stout appeared for the respective parties to the suit. The Court reserved judgment. The Court then adjourned until eleven o’clock next morning.