DISTRICT COURT.

Patea Mail, Volume V, Issue 497, 6 March 1880, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

Wednesday. —(Before His Honor Judge Shaw). IN BANKRUPTCY. Mr H. E. P. Adams made applications on behalf of J. E. Hchullzo and Edward Greenway, for orders of discharge. After questioning the'trustees, llis Honor granted the discharge of F. J. Schnllze, but expressed himself dissatisfied with tho manner in which the books had been kept. Edward Green way’s discharge to take effect three calendar months from date, owing to no books having been kept. SHEEPSKIN CASE. Patea Boiling Down Company v Felix O'Sullivan McCarthy ; claim, £ll7. Mr Fitzlierbert appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Barlcyman for tho defendant. This was a case of disputed numbers, in which the plaintiffs wished to show that tho defendant was liable to the Company for a certain number of sheepskins, but which the defendant denied. It appears from evidence that a contract had been entered into between the parties —by which the plaintiffs had agreed to supply the defendant with the sheep skins from the Boiling Down Works during last season, at different prices for different months. Delivery had been taken of all the skins, and at the close of the season the members of the Company, wishing to see how matters stood, held a meeting for the purpose of winding up the affairs. Previous to holding the meeting one of tho plaintiffs (Mr Winks) had waited on defendant, and had made use of words to the following effect, “ If the. Company charge you for the number of skins on their books, you will have to pay for 1,700 or 2,000 more than have been taken in for boiling down, and I have come to inspect your books to see if the matter can be set right.” The defendant made no objection, and bis books were looked into, but they could not be made to tally in any way with the Company’s. A meeting of tho Company was held in the evening, at which the defendant was present, and all the books (comprising blocks of delivery, manager’s memorandum, and butcher’s book) were gone into, but with no satisfactory result. In fact, according to evidence, the books were in such a muddle, that nothing at all could be made of them. Under these circumstances, it was suggested to the defendant that the fairest way to settle the matter would be for him to pay for the skins of the actual number of sheep boiled down, which could he arrived at from (he number sent in by the different members of the Company, am!

for which they held receipts. This the defendant agreed to do, and he promised to give a cheque for £IOO and the balance (not stated) by promissory note. The cheque was given, but was dishonored on presentation to the Bank. Another was subsequently given, which was paid. A statement had also been made at the meeting to defondont that his men had signed for a larger number of skins than they had received ; and afterwards, through going into his books, finding this to bo incorrect, defendant would not give the promissory note, and withdrew from his promise to pay for the actual number boiled down. The defendant had kept a diary, in which the number of skins as they arrived from the Boiling Down were entered day by bay, and from this diaiy a statement had been filed showing his liability to be £ll 15s 9d, which amount had been paid into Court. The men employed by defendant gave evidence to the care taken about entering the number of skins as they arrived. This diary, although not of a very prepossessing nature, appears to have been the only true record kept, there being nothing on the other side to disprove a single item. The hearing of the case, which occupied nearly two days, was a very tiresome one, and Judge Shaw deserves every praise, for the patient manner in which he endeavored to throw a little light on the tangled mass of evidence. His Honor, on Wednesday evening, said that if it was only a matter of money, lie would not hesitate in saying to the Boiling Down Company, “ your case is lost, and it serves you right, for the careless manner in which your books have been kepi but it involved a case of misrepresentation, in which the plaintiffs had been charged by defendant with having told him an untruth, in order to induce him to agree to their proposals. On these grounds he was determined to sift the affair to the bottom.

Uii the Court opening on Thursday morning, John Winks was re-examined as lo how ho arrived at the number of skins that ho stated defendant would have to pay for in excess of (ho number of sheep boiled clown, but tho explanation does not appear lo have satisiied the Court. Other witnesses were also re-examined on both sides.

In summing up, His Honor, after dwelling on the loose manner people had of keeping books, spoke as follows ; —This deeiarat ion comprises two counts practically —one for goods sold and delivered, and the other for an account stated and agreed upon between the patties. The former was abandoned by plaintilfs’ counsel, owing to the absence of the Company’s manager beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, in support of the latter, an oral promise of defendant’s was relied upon that he would pay the Company for the skins of all sheep slaughtered by thorn during the contract. After reviewing the evidence, the Court ruled that a piomisc to pay an amount not yet fixed, but lo be approximately arrived at from comparison of separate and independent accounts, did nut amount to an agreement to pay upon account stated. In effect, no account was stated. This is admitted by plaintiffs’ witnesses, and the exact liability of defendant was never at any time presented to him. Whether or not there exists such a liability, is ultra to the question. Having failed to prove the sale or delivery, they have had recourse to

O* Mjrfc ifror stipulated amount. Upon this they have failed to satisfy the Court, and judgment must go for the plaintilfs only to the amount paid into Court (Til 15s 9d), with costs incurred up to 10 tun. on did March, being the time of service of notice of payment to plaintiffs’ solicitor. The Court then adjourned,