MAGISTERIAL.

Patea Mail, 11 October 1882, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

PATEA, TUESDAY, OCT. 10. (Before C. A. Wray, Esq., 8.M.) CIVIL CASES. North v. Irwin. —Judgment summons £2B 9s sd. Defendant stated that be had called a • meeting of his Creditors to endeavour to come to an.arrangement. The case was consequently adjourned for a month. Slater v. Johnston. —Claim, £ll ss, on a judgment summons. Adjourned for a month. P. Mahony & Co. v. W, Odgers. —Claim £44 16s. Mr Barton for plaintiff, Mr Hatnerton for defendant. This was an action to recover the amount of goods supplied to Mr P. Kendall, contractor for the Manutahi Railway section, for whom both plaintiff and defendant were securities. W. Odgers deposed : Was a publican at Patea, and knew Mr Kendall, contractor for the Manutahi section. Witness was at present the contractor for that section. Government recognised him such, and progress payments were madeto ~- him for which be gave receipts. Did not know the amount of the contract, nor the liabilities, nor how much work bad yet to be done. Had received about £3OO. Had paid for the plant when the contract was taken over from Kendall. He produced a receipt for part of it. Government first recognised him as contractor about three months ago. Since ho had taken over the contract he had paid wages, &c., but none of the previous liabilities. Had paid Mr Gowland, butcher, three month’s account by bill, and Mr Buckley, for bread, by cheque. Did not think that included anything prievious to his taking over the contract. By Mr Hamerton : Never agreed to pay all Kendall’s liabilities. Never ordered goods from Mahony on this contract, and was not aware, when taking over the contract, that there was this liability. The items of the account had never been presented to him, and as a fact he did not know that the goods had ever been served. When Mr Barton came to his hotel with a letter, he did not promise to pay the amount, nor did he admit the liability. He had nothing to do with the contract till the Government wrote to him, that was on Sept. 4th. At present he bad paid a great deal more than he had received, and thought he would lose by the contract without reference to other people’s debts. He did not know the amount he had to receive from the contract, Patrick Mahony stated that the amount sued for was owing for goods supplied to Bush and Kendall, jointly and singly. On June Ist, their debit balance was £7O 19s 3d, for which be received a cheque from Kendall and Busli for £6O on account. The cheque was dishonored, and he went to Manutahi to see Kendall who told him that Bush had said the cheque was paid. Kendall said he would come into town and see what he could do. He came down on Friday, and gave a cheque for £4O, to take up the dishonored one. By Mr Hamerton : At the date Kendall gave the cheque for £4O, he owed our firm £47 16s 4d. Had rendered Mr Kendall an account on May 31st, showing that he owed nearly £SO. H. F. Christie gave evidence as to the cheque for £6O being presented on June 13th, and dishonored. Kendall called at his house, and gave the cheque for £4O on account of the dishonored one. William Paul Kendall said that he had carried on the contract until the middle of July, when, finding he could do so no longei, he consulted the Engineer in charge. He then handed the contract over to Odgers, his reason being that he had advanced so much money. The last payment he had received from the Government was on, or about July 6th. Odgers took over the contract during the first week in August, up to which time witness paid the wages. By Mr Hamerton : Captain Odgefs* backed his bills .and met them, and he paid witness more money than he had paid the men. He had advanced about £IOO more. The present debt was contracted before Odgers had anything to do with the contract. He never authorised Mahony to place the £4O cheque to Bush and Kendall’s credit. It was witness’ own money, and it was not likely that he should pay other people’s debts before his own. This concluded the evidence, and Counsel having addressed the Bench, judgment was reserved till after lunch. On resuming, his Worship said that in his opinion defendant was not liable either in law or equity, and judgment would be given in his favour, with £3 3s costs. The Court then rose.