DISTRICT COURT.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2088, 1 December 1879, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

THIS DAY. (Before His Honor Judge Ward.) CIVIL SITTINGS. Waugh v. Taylor.—Damages, £IOO. Messrs White and Jameson for plaintiff ; Mr Hamersley for defendant. Adjourned. Tate and another v W. White, Christchurch —Claim £93 6s 4d. Messrs White and Jameson for the plaintiffs, and Mr Hamersley for defendant. This was an action for money received for a piece of land—section 98, town of Timaru—which defendant agreed to sell to the plaintiffs, but for which they were unable to obtain a title. It appeared from the evidence of plaintiffs, and the District Land "Registrar, that after the money was paid for the laud, an application for certificate of title was signed by While, but no title could be issued, as the laud was affected by a proclamation, and was virtually in the hands of the Government. The defence set up was that White, having sold the land in perfect good faith, believing that there would be no difficulty about the title, the purchaser was bound to do his best to obtain the title from the Government. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed and costs.

R. Corle v. Thos. W. Fyfe—Claim £lO2 Ms 9kl on a dishonored promissory note. Mr Hamersley for the plaintiff, and Messrs White and Jameson for defendant. The promissory note produced was for £IOO, dated Aug 13, 1871. and was signed on a penny stamp, but contained nothing to shew whether it was payable on demand or at any given time. No demand for payment had been made prior to the action, and on this ground Mr White applied for a nonsuit. It was argued that there must be a demand for payment before the liability commenced and that a promissory note “payable on demand” was not due till the demand had been made. After considerable legal argument it was decided to proceed with the evidence. The plaintiff stated that the promissory note was endorsed to him about a fortnight ago. It had been in his possession over a week. He handed it over to his solicitor for collection. Mr Parson’s endorsed it, and received for doing so a mare, buggy, and harness and a cheque for the balance. Had no conversation as to why the note was given by Fyfe to Parsons. James Mitchell Ross stated that on the 12th August, Fyfe and Parsons came to his oflice and said they were in trouble about some land they had purchased from Mr Ford, involving them, as partners, to the extent of some thousands. They were disputing, and seemed to think the one was overreaching the other. A letter had been written by Mr Ford, aud they asked witness whac was best to be done. Witness said, “ Arc you willing to dissolve partnership?” They replied that was just what they wanted to do, and he gave them advice how to act. He supplied documents, and handed them to his partner, Mr Sims, and told them to call next day aud matters would be arranged. They called next day, were presented with a statement of accounts, and signed a memo, of dissolution, also the partnership account. There was a balance shewn to be due by Fyfe to Parsons, to settle which Fyfe gave a promissory note for £IOO, transfer of shares in the Colonial Building Society LSO, and the rest was to be allowed for Fyfc’s trouble with the land he had been cropping. Parsons stated that he wanted to arrange his affairs as he was likely to be held responsible for some land which they had bought. About eight days afterwards Fyfe called and complained that Parsons had not carried out his bargain, and was sticking to certain land which he had agreed to relinquish, and Parsons offered to allow their affairs to be submitted to arbitration. A deed of arbitration was drawn up by Mr Knublcy, Captain Sutter and Mr Lane, being appointed arbitrators. Fyfe signed the instructions for the deed to bo prepared. When the instructions were half written Parsons went away, stating he should be back in a minute, but he did not return. A memorandum was produced, signed by Parsons, agreeing to the instructions as to arbitration on condition that Fyfe paid for the deed. Afterwards Parsons absolutely refused to reopen the matter or refer it to arbitration, aud declined to give up the land in dispute. To Mr Hamersley: Parsons’ chief reason foa refusing to sign the deed of arbitration was that Fyfe had not found the necessary money, and he did not want him again as a partner. After hearing further evidence, His Honor gave judgment for the plaintiff for LIOO and interest. IN BANKRUPTCY.

On the application of Mr Knublcy, orders of discharge were granted to Ronald F. Chamberlain and Samuel Goodwin.