DISTRICT COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2294, 17 December 1891, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

Timaru —Tuesday, Dec. 15th. (Before His Honor Judge Ward.) IN BANKRUPTCY. Mr D. M. Ross, Deputy Official Assignee, was granted release in respect of the bankruptcies of John Hinckley, Mary Hoare, E. Dawson, J. Henniker, C. Burr, and J. D. Adam. PROBATE. Probate was applied for of the wills of J. Hay, J. H. Wrenn, and T. McColl, by Mr Postlethwaite; of Alice Farquharson, by Mr Salmond; of Allan McPherson, by Mr White (for Mr Clement); of Eliza Kelly, and David Denoon, by Mr Raymond. The applications were granted. CIVIL CASES. J. Mundell v. A. C. Ensor, goods sold and delivered (on authority to A. W. Ensor), claim £47 3s. Mr Perry for plaintiff, Mr Salmond for defendant. Mr Salmond stated there was no statement of defence filed. He simply required the plaintiff to prove his case. Mr Perry was rather taken by surprise as he had not anticipated any defence at all.

His Honor said the plaintiff must prove his case. John Mundell, auctioneer, Geraldine, the plaintiff, stated that Mr A. W. Ensor purchased at auction a quantity of sheepskins now sued for. About five weeks before the purchase, Mr Ensor called on him, told him the Loan Company had stopped his credit and he could not buy any more wool or skins, and asked if witness would advance Mrs Ensor a sum of money on security of her property at Winchester to enable him to carry on. Declined to do so, but told him that on the security mentioned he would easily get the money. Some time afterwards he met Ensor in the train, and Ensor told him he had arranged with Mr Jonas for advances to Mrs Ensor, on the security he had spoken of, and any wool or skins he bought would certainly be paid for, as he was acting as Mrs Ensor’s agent. He also said they need not be afraid of the Loan Company jumping upon them. On the strength of these statements skins were sold to him to the value now sued for. Witness would certainly not have given Ensor himself credit. Ensor became bankrupt a few days afterwards, and witness went to see Mrs Ensor. She said she was quite willing to pay for the skins, and to give an order on Mr Jonas to pay out of any surplus he might have on her account. She said if money could be raised on her properties, however it was done, she would see that they were paid. She gave him pen and ink for him to draw up the order, and was about to sign it when she said she had better consult her husband about it, and she would forward the order the next morning. She in no way disputed the liability. Cross-examined by Mr Salmond : Mrs Ensor told him she had several sections with buildings at Winchester; that they were hers, vested in trustees. She said nothing dbout the children being interested in them. ' The property was spoken of by Mrs Ensor as her own. The first time Ensor said he was Mrs Ensor’s agent was in the conversation in the train. He said Mr Jonas was to advance money to Mrs Ensor on the security of her property, and he was acting as her agent in buying wool and skins. Took no step to prove that statement; accepted it as true. Did not open a separate ledger account to Mrs Ensor. When he called on Mrs Ensor she said she was aware of what had been done by her husband; that he had also bought from Grade arid Maclean, and that she was prepared to do anything whereby both should be paid. She did not promise to pay unconditionally, but if she could raise money on the property. She in no way disputed the liability, but expressed regret that she could not pay it just then. Moss Jonas, auctioneer; Knew Mrs Ensor; did business with her during some months before September, on certain terms contained in a letter from her. (Letter, not addressed to any one, put in : ‘ I hereby beg to inform you that I am prepared to buy sheepskins on my own account, and authorise my husband A. W. Ensor, to act as my agent in purchasing and working the same.”) Had dealt with her on the terms of that letter to ft considerable amount, £IOOO or so. At present the accounts between them were not closed. There was a debit balance against her of a few pounds, but there were returns yet to be received from Home, which might be favourable or unfavourable; it depended what price the wool fetched.

To Mr Salmond : Did not understand that Ensor was to deal with other persons on her account; would not have agreed to it, would have had nothing to do with it if he had known Ensor was going to deal all round. Did not know what property Mrs Ensor had. Kndw it was vested in trustees. When he learned that the property was vested in trustees he wrote to them asking them to endorse her action in pledging her property. They replied that they had no power to do it, and so he put a stop to the dealings as soon as possible. Mr Perry addressed the court at soma length, and Mr Salmond followed. The latter contended that the plaintiff should be nonsuited. According to cases quoted a married woman cannot be sued upon a separate claim unless she has sufficient property to make it reasonable to suppose that the contract sued upon was made with reference to that property, and the onus of proving that sufficiency lay on the plaintiff. TTia Honor gave judgment for plaintiff. The case differed from those cited by Mr Salmond in that in those the question of separate property arose only in the mind of the plaintiff. Here the defendant herself and by her agent represented that she had a sufficient separate property to contract upon, and she was not entitled to take advantage of any misrepresentations made by herself or by her husband on her behalf.

Gracie, Maclean & Co. v. Same —Claim £64 4s Bd, goods sold and delivered. This case was similar to the previous one, but differed in respect to the point urged by Mr Salmond. J. A. Gracie gave evidence of a conversation with A. W, Ensor in which the latter gave him to understand that he was to understand ho was to carry on thp business in his wife’s name, but nothing was said about her separate estate. The witness said, however, he had mrtdo inquiry for himself and found that Mrs Ensor had that property in her own

name. No change was made in the account in their books. After considerable argument, Ills Honor, with much regret, nonsuited plaintiffs. This case differed from the last, as there was no statement made to plaintiffs as to the property belonging to the defendant. There was a ratification of the contract later, but no more. No costs would be allowed as no defence was filed. C. Bishop v. J. Brown and others. Mr C. Perry, with him Mr Kinnerney, for plaintiff, Mr Salmond for defendants. The legal argument was t aken on this case, which was heard before a jury some time ago, and at 5 p.m. the argument was adjourned to 11 o’clock next morning.

Wednesday, Dec. 16. Judgment in the cases of 0. Bishop against J. Brown, J. Blyth, and J. W. Miles was delivered in favor of the plaintiff for the amount awarded by the jury, namely £5 in each case. Notice of appeal was given.