DISTRICT COURT.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2493, 17 March 1881, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

(Before His Honor Judge Ward). TIMARU—YESTERDAY. CIVIL CASES. M’Donald v 'Wigley-—Claim £IOO. Mr Hatnersley for plaintiff; Mr White for defendant. This was a claim for alleged breach of contract arising out of the sale of certain sheep. The evidence of Mr Moss Jonas, auctioneer, went to show that he had been instructed by the defendant to sell between 1500 and 2000 sheep for him. The sheep were to be sold privately. They were sold to Mr M’Donald the plaintiff. After the sheep were sold the auctioneer received a letter from the defendant asking that the sale might be postponed for one month. Jas M’Donald stated that he purchased the sheep from Mr Moore, Mr Jonas’ stock salesman, and went to take delivery of the sheep from Mr Wigley. He wanted the money down for the sheep. Witness said he thought Mr Jonas’ letter was sufficient but the defendant said it was not. Then offered him a cheque for the amount but he said he did not want to sell. Witness had sold 1000 of them at 7s 6d conditionally on receiving delivery. Believed could now get 8s for them.

After some further evidence Mr White moved for a nonsuit on the following points ;—That the instructions were to sell by public auction; That there was no contract complying with section 17 of the Statute of Frauds ; That the signature, if any, was made by the clerk, and not by the defendant himself. The addresses of council were at His Honor’s suggestion, deferred until this morning as in the previous case. THIS DAY. In McDonald v. Wigley, His Honor, after hearing argument, refused to grant a non-suit, and Wigley having been examined, judgment was given for defendant with costs. McAnulty v. C. A. Shemtt—Claim £lO5, for harvesting. In this case, which was also adjourned from the previous day, the damages claimed by defendant were disallowed and judgment was given for £92 8s leave being reserved to defendant to bring a cross action for damages within fourteen days. In Bankruptcy. In re Thomas Scott. Mr White moved for an order against the trustee for payment of costs in connection with this estate. For the trustee it was objected—lst, that his Honor had no power to grant the order ; and 2nd, that the costs hud already been paid. It was shown that the debtor had paid £lO to Mr White just before filing, but Mr White stated that this money was for obtaining his order of discharge, and not for filing. As no affidvits had been filed, shewing how the money had been paid, His Honor adjourned the hearing of the application in order that the necessary affidavits might be produced. The question of costs, for which the trustee applied was also held over. The Court then adjourned.