SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5253, 24 January 1878, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

NISI PRIGS SITTINGS. Wednesday, January 23. (Before his Honor Chief Justice Prendergast.) GREENFIELD AND STEWART V. HORACE AMES, The hearing of this case was resumed, it having been adjourned on Monday in order to secure certain documentary and book evidence. It was an action to recover £122 16s. 6d. on account of timber supplied. Mr. Travers appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. Gordon Allan for the defendant. The former clerk at tho Hutt railway station proved that quantities of timber had been forwarded to Mr. Ames, and removed from the station by Mr. Nixon. ' Tho goods were delivered without any order, it being contrary to the practice to demand an order for goods claimed. Mr. Nixon was at the time building a police station, and witness believed bo had since left the district. John Edward Hayes, plumber, stated that recently, he had a conversation with defendant with reference to Nixon, who had bolted and left a number of unpaid debts behind. Ames

remarked that it was a bad job, and he would have trusted the man like his own brother, he had such confidence in him. He further said he had given his name to Messrs. Greenfield and Stewart for certain timber supplied to Nixon. Witness told some one about this conversation, but where he did not know. He had also spoken to Greenfield on the subject, and he remarked that he was safe, as Ames had given his name for the timber. Tliis closed plaintiffs’ case. Mr. Allan in his address submitted that defendant had never incurred any responsibility regarding this timber, nor was any of the timber delivered to him. Horace Ames, the defendant, said he was an hotelkeeper residing at the Upper Hutt, and knew plaintiffs, with whom he had had considerable dealings. The man Nixon referred to in evidence was a carpenter, and authorised witness one day, on going into Wellington, to execute an order with plaintiffs for some timber. Witness saw Grefenfleld, and gave him an order, which was in Nixon’s own handwriting. No demur was made to executing the order, nor was anything said about making wituess responsible. Nothing was said until after Nixon had left, when witness met Stewart on the wharf and asked if Nixon had paid his account. Stewart said he did not know, but would see when he got back to the office. After this conversation an account was sent in to witness’ brother by Messrs. Greenfield and Stewart, and another was sent in to witness. Those accounts were returned, with an endorsement to the effect that Nixon had left the district. Witness had never had any money transactions with Nixon. Certain statements made in the witness-box by Greenfield, McColl, and Hayes, with regard to witness promising to pay for the timber, were untrue. James Ames stated that subsequent to the account for timber being sent to defendant witness met Mr. Greenfield iu Wellington, and a conversation cropped up between them respecting the account. Plaintiff said he knew Horace had nothing to do with Nixon, but they (plaintiffs) could not afford to lose the debt. Witness replied that his brother was in no way responsible, and had merely intended to confer a favor by introducing a customer. Greenfield said tint his lawyer had advised him to take the matter into the Supreme Court, and if his (witness’s) brother lost it would make him, liable for all other debts iu Nixon’s name. His Honor then summed up, and the jury retired at six o’clock. They returned into Court shortly after with a verdict for the plaintiffs for the amount claimed. The Court then rose.