MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2846, 9 May 1882, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMAEU-—THIS DAY. (Before J. Beswick, Esq., E.M., E. G. Stericker, and J. Manchester, Esq.’s.) CATTLE AT LARGE WITHIN THE BOROUGH. Patrick Blake, T. F. Parsons, and H. Nicholls were charged, the first two with allowing horses, and the last a cow, to be at large within the Borough. The two first were fined 5s each, the last 10 1, ALLOWING CATTLE ON THE RAILWAY. J. Kane, A. Anderson, and C. Johnson were charged with this offence and wore fined as follows The two first 10s each, the last 20s. TAILING TO PROVIDE. James Johnson, charged with neglecting to support his child in the Industrial School, was ordered to pay 5s per week in fortnightly payments. ■ , Civil Cases. Allan and Stumbles v,,Cliff, claim £2l 19s 2d. - Judgment was given for plaintiff for amount claimed, and *,2 19s costs. Sinclair v. Davidson (judgment summons) claim £4 4s. The defendant was ordered to pay.the amount forthwith, in default 14 days imprisonment. , W. Collins v. Rickus (judgment summons) claim £l2 16s and cqsts.. ~ Mr Jameson for plaintiff. The defendant was ordered to give an order to Mr Manchester, otherwise to pay 5s per week, or in default 14 days’ imprisonment ; the amount to be paid into the Waimate Court. Parsons v. Henderson, claim £27 19s on a dishonoured bill. Mr Jameson , for plaintiff, and Mr Hamersley for defendant. W. Parsons said he had advanced certain monies to pay Henderson’s,store bill. He had mislaid the acceptance for seine time. When witness asked for payments defendant, refused to pay. Witues’s son had filled in the body of the cheque. The amount, with interest, was still due to him. , To Mr Hamersley—l got the bill out of my box, I think. I am not .sure whose box it was. I think Mrs Parsons (my daugiiter-in-law) found it. [Clio bill was found in my son’s house. I showed Cork the bill, and one day asked him to collect it. lam not sure I gave it to him. To the Bench—l asked Henderson for it first 21 years ago. I do not remember parting with the bill, except that I think I gave it to my son. Examination continued Witness never parted with the bill. He never sold the bill to Cork. = - ;

James Parsons, ironfounder, said Henderson borrowed money, and gave a bill for it. Witness knew this from Henderson. Ho (witness) wrote out the body of this cheque in Henderson’s presence, and bis (witness’s) father’s. The previous witness had left the bill in witness’ house by accident. He. frequently left papers at witness’ housei It was the property of witness’ father. To Mr Hamersley—l will not swear Cork did not give the bill to me. We (Henderson and I) w ere dissolving partnership at the time this bill fell due. Henderson and,l went to Cork to square up the. partnership accounts. I believe this bill was mentioned at the time by Henderson and Cork. Hb agreement was made about it. They Wanted me to pay it, but I refused. I will swear I objected. I will swear jt if Henderson, Cork, and a dozen people say otherwise. (Considerable argument here took place between counsel and the Bench as to the functions and scope of power of an agent pr collector. It appeared dhat Henderson objected to pay- the amount because he contended he had been released from the liability By Parsons, junior.) . , . . This was,the case for,the plaintiff.

James Henderson, blacksmith, said ho was in partnership with the last witness. When“ the partnership was dissolved, witness and plaintiff went'to Cork, as Parsons was pressing witness to make over certain landed interests'to him,'but witness refused. Cork was threatening to summon witness on this bill which he held from Parsons senior.'

The Bench here decided to hear argument as to Cork’s position in regard to this bill, and to decide whether he was an agent properly authorised. Witness, continued—'At Cork’s office, witness said he would take Cork as referee, and. Parson’s junior said he would take up the bill. Cork was witness of this. There was to . be no pressure. Time was to be allowed. To Mr Jameson—Mr Parsons, senior, was not present then.* I referred to Cork in order to come to a settlement. People often go to Cork to make arrangements of this kind, I declined to make over leases, &c ; of this I am sure. James Parsons bothered me to get the leases signed over. This document (produced) is mine. [Witness here perused the document, and Mr Jameson read it to the Court. It proved to be a note of assignment.of certain leases.]! To . the Bench—This bill was not presented to me at Cork’s. Thomas Grierson Cork, accountant, said he had that bill to collect, and asked Henderson to pay it.; Henderson refused on the ground that Parsons, junior, owed him money. Witness had no specific instructions as to the mode of collecting the bill, merely a general direction to 1 got the money.’ Ho saw both parties together afterwards. Henderson said “ Parsons and I have come to arrange this.’’ The proposed' arrangement was for Parsons to take .up this bill, and witness and Parsons were parties to this arrangement. Parsons owed Henderson money then. The bill was then given back to Parsons, senior, by witness with an explanation of the arrangement just specified. It had then been in witness’ hands six weeks. To the Bench—l did not part with the bill because I was accountable for it. I gave the bill back to Parsons senior. Mr Hamersley submitted that the authority to collect the bill was clearly given. It bad .been a matter of mutual accommodation. The father would long ago have collected the amount from his son if no such arrangement had been entered into as that between Cork, the plaintiff, and defendant. Counsel quoted “ Story ou Agency” at considerable length. Mr Jameson contended that there was no writing in existence discharging Henderson from liability and shifting tho liability to Parsons junr. If any such arrangement had been, Henderson’s name would have been deleted from tho bill, and Parsons sour., (tho holder) would have sued the person whoso name appeared on the bill. Cork’s authority was conveyed in those words “ Collect that bill," aud

immediately Cork handed that bill back to Parsons senior, his (Cork’s) authority was at an end. Cork was used as a referee, not as an agent. His Worship considered there was no evidence to show that Henderson was ever released. Judgment would be given for plaintiff for amount claimed with costs.