DISTRICT COURT.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2284, 13 July 1880, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

TIMAIIU—THIS DAY. (Before His Honor Judge Ward.) CIVIL CASES. Proprietors of Point Store v. Thompson—Chum C7J (is tkl, balance due for goods delivered. Mr Austin for plaintiffs ; Mr HamersIcy for defendant. Adjourned on the application of Mr Austin to August 1. Creditors’ Trustees of James Rogers v. Jonas and others—Claim C7O 7s, money had and received. Messrs Berry and Bony for plaintiffs ; Mr Austin for defendant. This ease gave rise to a considerable, amount of preliminary argument, Mr Austin objecting that the plaintiff had not taken the proper form of; action. The real 'defendants were not Messrs Jonas, Hart, and Wildio, it was John O’Brien who should have bean sued, he being the actual defendant. After about an hour’s discussion, His Honor reserved the point for further argument. The case (ben proceeded. Mr C. Berry in opening (be ease for the plaintiffs stated that James Rodgers was a farmer, or rather a cropper and be had a.brother-in-law named O’Brien, who was engaged by him to work for him at a salary of 2ns per week. He worked fur some time on these terms, but was unable to obtain any money in payment from bis employer. On April 2J last he endeavored to arrive at an understanding with Rodgers, and demanded bis wages - Rodgers (hereupon gave him a security over certain property, to (he extent 01. £I.JS ; this was as security for wages. He (the learned counsel) would show that after Ibis O'Brien took possession of certain goods lielonging to Rodgers, and that be look them to Temnknfor the purpose of selling them, lie advertised (hem ; a, fictitious sale took place, and it was afterwards declared by O'Brien that the tilings were sold to one Day. H would bo shown, however, that this was not (lie case ; for on the same night of the pretended, sale, O’Brien caused (be goods ro be brought back to Jonas, Hart and Wihlie's rooms, for the purpose of having them sold by that firm. It would bo shown that both the bankrupt and O’ Brien had endeavoured to get the proceeds of the sale from Messrs Jonas and Co. It would be further shown that at the time, and before (bo time, Rogers gave the bill of

sale ho had been dishonoring bills and cheques. He would call James Pogers, the bankrupt, who deposed that lie lilcd about May 7, and that he gave Daniel O’Brien, his brother-in-law a bill of sale over certain property in lieu of wages clue to him for work done. The bill of sale was given to O’Brien because bo insislcd on being paid the money owing to him. The witness owed about £ 100 at the lime he gave the bill of sale. O’Brien took charge of the goods mentioned in the bill of sale. They were not on the farm live or six days before the witness hied. Witness went to Temnka with O’Brien. Saw Mr Grey about the goods being sold. Could not say whether the goods were afterwards sold or not. Did not sec the goods at Messrs Jonas’ after this. Could not remember whether lie had seen Mr -James King about the tilings or not. He might have done so. Was not present at Jonas’ when the goods were sold. Witness tiled in consequence of the pressure of creditors, O’Brien among others. Had dishonored a promissory note given to one James Crawford, and also one given to a man named Vale. In addition to the goods included in the bill of sale, witness possessed a quantity of wheat shipped to England, and a four-roomed cottage. It was on O’Brien’s account witness went to Temnka to arrange about the sale of tiic goods. [l.eft sitting-.]