RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1788, 11 September 1888, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Geraldine—Monday, Sir, 10, 1888.

[Before R. H. Pearpoint and H. W. Moore, Eiqs., J,P.’s]. CITIL CASES.

The Colonial Investment Co. v. H. F, Jones—Claim £2.

Mr Raymond appeared for the plaintiffs. He statad that the plaintiff* elaimed the abovs amount under a bill of sale given by on* Georgs Foster, of Kakahu, to Messrs Moody and Ziesler, of Timaru, who afterwards transferred it to the Colonial Investment Company, Dunedin. Included in this bill of sale was a set of four-leafed harrows, which, it was ascertained, had been sent by Foster to the defendant in the present action for repairs. Since being applied to by the Company to hand them over, the defendant had sold them for £2, and it was to recover this sura the Company brought the action. He admitted that under the circumstances it was a hardship on defendant. James Matheson deposed to being manager for the Company, and since the 24th of May last had been in the district winding up the affairs of the Company. He knew defendant, also tbs Bey. G, Foster. The latter gave a bill of eule to the Company, which included the harrows. Saw defendant on the 23rd of June last, and ho admitted having them. He declined to give them up till his claim for repairs was paid. Saw him afterwards, together with Mr Smith, one of the directors of the Company. The defendant then said he had sold the harrows to a party in Waimate.

To defendant j You told me you had a set of harrows belonging to the Rev. Q, Foster, which had been sent you for repairs. I told you I would call later after, I bad seen Mr Foster.

To Mr Raymond* I never gave defendant authority to sell the harrows, Henry F. Jones, defendant, deposed; About ten months ago Mr Foster sent a set of harrows to him for repairs. They were in bad order, and he charged £2 for the work. After waiting some months, haying them still in his possession, and fuding Mr Foster did not pay his claim, he sent word to him that if the claim was not paid be (defendant) should sell them, but Mr Foster never claimed them. Told Mr Matheson that he (defendant) had a claim on the harrows of £2, and he promised to send him word about it, which he (Mr Matheson) had not done. The information said, “ a set of five-leaf harrows.” Those he had were four-leaf., H* never had a fire-leaf set, and t. ersfore, the plaintiffs had no claim on him.

'To Mr Raymond t Tbs harrows came from Mr Foster’s, and I told Mr Matheson 1 had them, and that if the £2 was not paid I should ■ell them, and sent a verbal notice to Mr Foster. I sent a bill previously to Mr Foster and told him the barrows were ready. Mr Foster owed me £7 or £8 more. Mr Foster did not give me permission to sell them. I gave him ire or six months’ notice before I ■old them.

Mr Raymond laid ha did nofc dispute but that the harrows were four-leaf ones. The bill of sale covered everything. He would aifc for the plaint to be amended. The Bench hayius granted permiiiioa, said thev should have the bill of sale before them. Mr Raymond said that he did not bring it with him, but Mr Matheson and himself could both prove that the bill of sale covered everything. Mr Matheion, re-called, said the bill of sale included a four-leaf as well as a fiveleaf set of harrows.

Mr Raymond stated that he had prepared the bill of sale himself, and it included a four-leaf and a five-leaf set of harrosri.

Mr Riymond having addressed the Bench, the latter, after a short consultation, gave j udgment for the amount claimed, with costs of Court, and Mr Mathesen’s travelling expenses from Ximaru, 10s.

This being all the business the Court adjourned.