MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2320, 24 August 1880, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMAHH—THIS DAY. (Before R. Bectham, Esq., R.M.) CIVIL CASES. In (lie following cases judgment was given for plaintiffs, with costs: —H. Hall v. Selwyn, £3 19s 4d; Cork v. fhompson, £2 T2s; Strachan’s trustee v. E, P. George, £L 9s Id; same v. O’Connor, £4 13s lid ; Cunningham v. Hornbrook, £7 18s 3d; Hamersley r. S. Doig, £2l; Cunningham v. R. Wood junr. and another, £L3 9s9d; same y. fCippenbergcr, £99 19s lid ; Johnson’s trustees v. Wm. Moore, £1 14s; Cork v. P. H. Russell, £5 8s 9d. Sutter v. Richmond, trustee for Mrs Shaw—Claim £64 2s 9d.

Mr White for plaintiff, Mr HamersIe3 r for defendant. .1. H. Sutter, the plaintiff, stated that he had seen the defendant that morning, and he admitted that he was personally liable for the amount of the claim. The facts of the case were that he had served Shaw with a writ for dishonored bill. The writ matured, and witness obtained judgment, but subsequently came to an arrangement with the defendant. Mrs Shaw agreed to divide the amount due into four portions and give him four bills at three months for the money. Mrs Shaw said if any difficulty'- ensued she would raise money on her property and meet the bills. Richmond had told witness that ho was trustee for the property of Jane Shaw.

By Mr White—There was a bill due by one Shaw. Richmond’s name was on it. This was one of the four bills alluded to. The first of the four had been paid. This was the second. J. W. White, solicitor, stated that he had that morning seen Richmond and Mrs Shaw at his office. They came there about this matter, and wanted to get time. Witness advised Richmond to confess judgment, and he would doubtless be allowed a month by the Court. He said he wanted three months. He admitted the liability.

Thomas Bichmond stated that Jane Shaw was his wife’s mother. Had seen Captain Sutter and asked him to give Mrs Shaw time, as she did not wish to have her place sold. Captain Sutter said lie would sec her personally, and she came up from Dunedin to see him. Witness signed the bill for Mrs Shaw as her trustee.

By Mr White—This is one of the four bills given to Captain Sutter on his consenting to withdraw his action against Mrs Shaw. Witness was himself insolvent at the time the tour bills were given. Had told Mr White ho was not in a position to meet the bills, but if given time would himj seif be responsible for their payment. Jane Shore stated that the bill produced, dated August 0, was given to Capt. Sutter with three others. Capt. Sutter insisted on her trustees signing the bills. Had not yet raised the loan on her property. By Mr White—Had first tried to raise the money on her property eight months ago. Had tried again lately. Mr Hamersley contended that .Richmond was merely a surety in this matter, and was therefore clearly entitled to have received notice of dishonor. Mr White stated the facts. A writ had been issued against Shaw by CapJ tain Sutter, but the action had been discontinued on the defendant consenting to divide the amount into four bills. If Richmond was a surety, he must also be considered a principal. Mr Hamersley maintained til at notice of dishonor should have been given. His Worship said the whole thing resolved itself into how far Richmond was liable, he having signed as trustee. In his opinion he must be considered liable and judgment must therefore be for the plaintiff. Mr Hamersley gave notice of appeal.