SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 21 May 1918, Page 7

SUPREME COURT.

.YBSTJSRDAY'S PROCEJSMNCiS.

(Before his -lienor the Chief Justice, Sir Ko'bert tetout.) PERKOTT v. GEIFIW The hearing of the claim of Gilbert T. Perrott and Ellen Perrott (Mr. \V. J. Treadwell, Wanganui) against William Griffin (Mr. P. O'Dea, liuwera), for £23 r 2, for alleged fraudulent misrepresentation of the value of the stock-in-trade of a store which had been part of an exchange between the parties, was continued. Mr. Treadwell intimated that an endeavor had been made to effect a settlement betwen the parties, 'but their ideas remained as far apart as the poles. Gilbert Perrott, further cross-exam-ined, said the valuation of the stock was the main question at issne. He had asked for a valuation in March. If the valuation was settled, the whole action would he settled. His Honor interposed to say if that was the case lie thought it should be possible to arrange a settlement. He supposed by- the time the valuation was asked for some of the stock had been sold. All that could be done now would be to have a valuation made of the balance of the stock, and make a settlement on that basis.

Mr. O'Dea said he had offered to have a, valuation made, with representatives from both sides, and an umpire, if necessary, but it had been rejectedHis Honor suggested that it should be possible to get someone to go from New Plymouth who was an authority on wholesale prices, and arrange the matter. Mr Treaclwell said a valuation had already been made by expertsHis Honor invited counsel to discuss the matter with him privately, and an adjournment was taken for that purpose. On resuming, Mr. Troadwell intimated that an arrangement had been arrived at whereby a valuation was to be made of the stock-in-trade and plant, according to the terms of agreement. Each of the parties was to appoint a valuer for the drapery goods, also for the grocery and ironmongery. A competent valuer was to be asked to value the billiard table, and the horses and plant, that ! Pefrott was taking over were also to be valued. T-he valuers were to appoint an umpire to act in case of a dispute. The valuations were to ibe made as near as possible to those at the timo of completion. on January 1. On the counterclaim a reduction of "£l7 10s was arranged in respect to one item, and no f\irfh»r ite>n to be claimed for. The transfer of the properties was to bo completed at once. Tt was. therefore, asked that the further hearing of the ease be a-'jcnirr.od till June 7, at Wanganul. The application was granted.

GUMMING t. BEAUOHAMP.

RBSERV'ED JUDGMENT. VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT. His Honor delivered judgment in thtf case of J. M. Cumming v. Reginald de CBeauchamp, a claim for £2Ol 5s on a promissory note. His Honor said: — This is an action for the sum of £2Ol ss, being principal and interest on a promissory note. The note, which was dated December 24, 1915, fell due on .Tune 27, 1910, and was made by the defendant, and purports to be in favor of plaintiff. It is admitted that the defendant signed the note. With the exception of the sisrnature. it is—wliere in writing—in tho handwriting of the plaintiff. The defence is that it was intended for Messrs Matthews, Gtailin, and Co., And that no consideration massed between plaintiff and defendant for it. The defendant was indebted to Matthews, Hamlin, and Co. to the extent of £SOO, and the plaintiff was the accountant to the firm, and did general work for them. His story is that the bill was given in payment of a sum of £2OO owing to him as his share of profits in certain purchases and sales of land. These sales were effected by Matthews, Oamlin, and Co.. as agents for certain landowners, and the defendant was the purchaser. Plaintiff, as the servant of Camlin, and Co., made the sales, and claims that he is entitled to a share of thfe profits resulting therefrom. His words were:' "You might call one a sleeping partner with defendant." According to his own statements, then, he was acting as servant to the firm, and was himself the buyer with defendant. This was without the knowledge of the vendors- Such a transaction cannot be characterised as otherwise than fraudulent, for it amounts to an agent selling land to himself and his partner and charging the vendors' principals commission for so do in?, and this unknown to the vendors. The plaintiff states that two members, if not three members, of the agency firm knew that these wholly improper transactions were taking place, but no witness was called to corroborate the statement- The two partners—Mr. Matthews and Mr. Rodgers—who, he savs. knew of these transactions, were not called. Mr. fiamlin was not questioned concerning his knowledge of such transitions. The evidence of the plaintiff is irreconcilable with that of the .defendant, who is to be believed. According to the evidence of tlie former" there was due to him in July. 1915, over £SOO. this amount representing his half profits in the transactions mentioned. He sav s he received £so—£2s in Julv and £25 in S«ntember—on account of rhU sum of £SOO, and that tlie balance was owing to him. Strange to sav. he further on vs he we the £ 25 paid to him in July to Mr. Matthews as a gift! I n November, 1915, a meeting of the principal creditors of the defendant was held, consisting of Mr. Newton King, Mr. Gamlin; the defendant was present with his attorney (Mr. Budge) and his solicitor (Mr. Truby King); the plaintiff was also present. At this meeting the financial position of the defenrlant, who was shortly to leave the eountry on active service, was carefully considered, and a statement of his liabilities and assets drawn up. The statement showing the liabilities is in the handwriting of Mr. Budge, and the other, showing the assets and balance of assets over liabilitie-, is in the handwriting of Mr. Newton King. Thp liabilities were set down as follows:—'Matthews, Gamlin, and Co.. £H!00; Newton King. £Bfio; bank and wool. £410: and nlninW was a«kcd, as hi was conversant with defondant's business affairs, If there were

any further liabilities which had not ■been mentioned, and lie replied that there worn not. UU excuse iur deceiving the creditors anil defendant's attorney was that the sum alloyed to ibe due to him was a private debt. That is 110 excuse. The (Question lor thu Court, then, is: is j le , having acknowledged lie committed fraud on tho vendors whom his Jirm represented, and, if lii# present story i 3 true, having lied about the liabilities of defendant, a witness of truth! It is more creditable to him to suppose that the promissory note was even a gift without consideration than to assume that it was a settlement of such a transaction as lie states. Further, if, as stated, his principals were in want of funds to such an extent that lie was giving Mr. Matthews £'2's, it is more likely that lie asked Beauchamp for the note for them. lam of opinion that the Court cannot accept h is testimony as true- He does not seem to appreciate the fact that his conduct, even if hia statements were true, was contrary to all the rules observed by honest business people. His mode of giving evidence does not favorably impress me. Judgment must, therefore, die entered for defendant, with cost? according to scale, witnesses' expenses and disbursements, and £3 3s leave to defend. Judgihent was entered accordingly.

IN BANKRUPTCY An application for discharge from bankruptcy was made by Fleming, Hamel, and ITore, Patea, on behalf of Henry Oavid Cameron Simson and Thomas Cvril Simpson, of Whenuakura Mr. A. H. Johnstone appeared for A. H. Stewart, Eltham, to oppose the application. He intimated, however, that as one of the bankrupts had only recently returned from tTife front, and was at present in Wangnnui Hospital, he would ask far an adjournment till next sessions. The sojournment was granted. The Court adjourned till 10 am, today. EMBEZZLER PLEADS BLAICKMATL. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, May 20. At the Supreme Court to-day Martha Hutchins, cleric of the Woodvillo County Council, wlio liad nlended guilty to misappropriating £i5R5, the property of that body, came up for sentence. Counsel said she had hitherto borne a good character, that she was a woman and a few years ago gave birth to a child, that two men had threatened to expose her, and she gave them money to prevent the exposure. One man was killed at the front, the other died recently in Woodville. The prisoner was remanded for further inquiries. SENTENCES AT DUNEDIN. Duncdin, May 20. The following prisoners came up for sentence this morning:—William Armour Micliie Kilt (.breaking and entering and theft), aged 18, was admitted to iprobation for three years; Patrick Joseph Oliver (forgery), aged Ifl, was ordered tn come up for sentence, certain conditions being imposed: Mary Oearv (concealment of birth) was admitted to probation for three years.