MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2841, 3 May 1882, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIM AEU—YESTE IID A Y. [Before J. Bcswick, Esq., K.M.) Civil Cases. Houston v. Clulee, claim £59 for ironmongery supplied to defendant’s house. Mr Jameson appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Hamorsley for the defendant. (This case arose out of a dispute re certain goods supplied to the contractor for Mr Clulee’s house and was analgous to tiro case of Jackson v. Clulee, which has recently been before the court.) J. Houston, ironmonger, deposed that he had supplied Cotton, (Mr Cluleo’s contractor,) and had sent the account to Mr Clulee.

Mr Clulee had, partly by a payment on account, partly by verbal admission, admitted his liability. To Mr Hamorsley—The only item in this account that I can swear Mr Clulee selected was two rim locks. Mr Clulee has never objected to pay me. Ho said he had kept back money from Cotton to pay me and that I should be better paid than anybody, for I should be paid in full. To the Bench—Cotton never paid me anything, Mr Clulee paid mo £5, that is all I have had.

Mr Hamorsley said that the defence would be that there was no agreement at any time on defendant’s part to pay. Mr Clulee bad always refused to accept an order, he had merely said that what he could do he would, to protect Houston. It is usual in a case of contracts for tradesmen, when they find a contractor goes broke, to rush on the unfortunate principal. George F. Clulee said ho had selected none of the goods except the locks. Mr Houston presented witness with the order produced, but witness declined to take any responsibility. Witness said only he would protect Houston. There was no balance left on the contract wherewith Houston might be paid. Witness had undertaken to pay all ho had selected, but this was merely household furnishings, grates, door locks, &c, and witness did actually pay for them. The various accounts were sent in separately. Witness always told Houston he would not be liable. To Mr Jameson—l am not aware that the price of the contract was unduly low. Ido not remember saying that any money kept back from Cotton was for Jackson. I told Jackson I would protect him as well as 1 could. Subsequently to this I retained £4O. Ido not know whether the light or heavy materials were ordered first. Ido not know whether Houston knew of the price of the contract. I retained the order, I endorsed it “ paid £10.” I remember I retained orders in Jackson’s case. Jackson, Shears, and Houston, as far as I know, were all waiting on the chance of getting something out of the contract. When the amount (£10) was paid, nothing was said about payment in future.

Re-examined by Mr Hamersley—The accounts for goods selected by me and for those got by Cotton, respectively, were never sent to mo together. ’ Mr Hamersley, for tho defence, said this was a case which came under tho category of those in which a guarantee to be binding must be in writing. Olulee, when saying that ho would protect defendant as far as lay in his power, never meant to incur a distinct liability on which he might be sued. The two sets of goods being kept separate, was proof that Houston did not hold the same man liable for both.

Mr Jameson on behalf of plaintiff, said this contention would be very well if the promise of protection had been the first utterance on tho subject; whereas at former interviews more definite words wore used, and besides tho promise of protection was in itself a promise of indemnity. His Worship would remember that Houston bad always refused to supply Cotton and it was only in reliance on Olulee that' he bad been got to supply goods to Cotton. Counsel adverted to tho fact that three persons were evidently left in the same position regarding Olulee’s house. Mr Clulee had fenced at first when in the box, but afterwards admitted to His Worship that he know the contract price was too cheap, and did know he had got a cheap house. Counsel further remarked that it was evident tho house had been put up very cheaply, for it seemed that for several things connected with it, nothing had been paid. MrClulee had kept £4O back for the embellishment of the bouse and the payment of Craigie, with whom he had no contract. His Worship reserved his decision.

Parsons v. Henderson—Claim £34 3s' 10d,for a dishonored promissory note, Mr Jameson for plaintiff, Mr Hamersley for defendant. Adjourned by the Court for seven days.

Toomey v. Davidson—Claim 11s fid, value of a hat. The case was withdrawn. Allan and Stumbles v. G. Cliff—Claim £2l 19s 2d, for law costs. Mr Jameson for plaintiffs, Mr White for defendant. Adjourned.