MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2899, 11 July 1882, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMAHD—THIS DAT. (Before J. Beswick, Esq., 8.M.) UTTERING A FORGED CHEQUE., ;' William Davie was brought up on remand, charged with passing, a valueless cheque, knowing it to be valueless.; Mr Pearson appeared for the accused. Accused was committed for . trial at tho ensuing session -o^ ; ,t(ieT Supremo Court. • Bail was fixed at two sureties of \£6o each, and the father of accused in a like amount. CATTLE TRESPASS. J. H. Dicken and H. Nichols were fined , for this offence 40s and 10s respectively. s . • CIVIL CASES. ' ' ■ ' M. Jonas v. J. D. Rogers, claim £ls 16s.' Mr Jameson appeared for, plaintiff and Mr Hamersley, for defendant. - The following evidence was taken : M. Jonas deposed to tho . correctness of the statement rendered by him to defendant. ; ■ . ,r i- > - Mr Hamersley cross-examined plain, tiff at considerable length for the purpose of showing that the details of his claim were not properly set forth in the account rendered to .defendant. ~He failed to, show any discrepancy what, ever.

His Worship gave judgment for the plaintiff for amount claimed with costs. Morris v. Flynn Brothers, claim £4B 3s 5d., Mr Toss will for plaintiff and ; Mr White for defendant. Mr White said the case had;been withdrawn by plaintiff without reason. His client had attended twice already and the case had been adjourned. Ho thought a withdrawal by plaintiff under such circumstances without redress to defendant would be monstrous. He asked His Worship to grant the usual fee to his client. Mr Tosswill objected that Mr White was in Court on the occasion referred to, on other business as well as this. His Worship upheld the application of Mr White, and granted the fee of £2 2s. R. Stansell v. J. Hayhurst, Claim £34 ss. • ; Mr Jameson for plaintiff, Mr White for defendant. This case, which was a claim against the defendant for printing and advertising on behalf of the Kakahu Colliery Company, had several times been before the Court. A discussion was now raised by Mr White objecting that Mr Hamersley in all he did, was the agent of one Meredith alone, to which Mr Jameson replied that Mr Hamersley was acting entirely as agent for the promoters of the Colliery Company. Mr White in - sisted, however, that Mr Hamersley was only authorised by Meredith, and called G. Meredith, farmer, Kakahu, who said he had met Mr Hamersley at Geraldine. That gentleman had undertaken to float tho Company, and'witness got tho co-operation of Messrs Barker, Hayhurst, and others, on the understanding that they should not bear any responsibility in the matter. The Company was floated, and the directory appointed. To Mr Jameson —Mr McKay was a director. Nothing was said about who was to boar the expenses in tho event of the Company no: L’.erj-, body thought it would be a success. I don’t know about Mr Barker. It was a very hard matter to get him; he seemed to think there might be a ra-

sponsibility. The prospectus (produced) I sent to Mr Hamersley. got the directors, except two in Timara . that Mr Hamersley got. I wrote Mr Barker’s name by his instruction. I also signed Mr Hardcastle’s name. I have seen MrSherratt,but Mr Hamersley took the business into his own hands. This note (produced) is signed by Sherratt. ’ Re-examined —The first meeting of promoters was in the Crown hotel Geraldine. . Mr White addressed the Court on behalf of the defendant, pointing out that everything went to show that Mr Hamersley had acted as solicitor, for Meredith, and that he was never authorised by the promoters to act for them. The people whose names had been brought forward were merely nominees who had lent their, names. If an agent acted without written instructions there was no reason why his principal should suffer for such neglect. Mr Jameson then addressed' the Court for the plaintiff. The case turned upon implied authority. It appeared that Mr Hayhurst had attended the meeting of promoters as Chairman, and it was on his signature alone to, the promoters that Mr Stansell executed the work. Besides, Mr Hayhurst knew the advertisement was. going on with his name attached as Chairman. Unless it could be shown that the colliery was merely a joint enterprise on the part of Meredith and Hamersley, the liability must fall on the promoters. Bis Worship said it appeared that the proposal to form a company originated in Mr Meredith’s desire to make something out of his property. The prospectus was drawn up, Mr Hamersley acting as Secretary and solicitor. In this dual capacity he went to plaintiff to give' the order, on which • the action was taken. Was Mr Hamersley justifieri in his action without holding written authority? As no objection had been taken by the promoters to Mr Hamersley’s so acting it was evident that the company was to some extent liable. Mr Hayhurst’s statement that although he had allowed his name to appear in connection with the initiation of this scheme, he never intended investing a penny in it, it was discreditable to him, and he would expreshis own disapproval of it. It would be a hardship that plaintiff, acting in good faith should lose his money. Judgment would be given for plaintiff for full amount claimed with costs.