MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2747, 6 December 1894, Page 4

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka —Tuesday, December 4, 1894. [Before C. A. Wray, Esq., S.M.] CIVIL CASES. J. Martin v. G. Dyson—Claim £24105. Mr Salmond for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff by default, with costs. Jas. Blyth v. C. A. Bennetts—Claim £1 2s 6d. Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs. J. W. Salmond v. J. L. Rowe—Claim £ 1 lis 6d. Plaintiff stated that he had been instructed by the defendant to make certain enquiries iu Auckland relative to the. estate of a Mr Morris, the father of defendant's wife. The defendant denied that he had been responsible for the cost of the enquiries. They were made solely ou his wife's account. He had accompanied his wife to Mr Salmond's office. Judgment for plaintiff for ampunt claimed and costs. J. Brown v. G. Hobbs—Claim £47s lOd. Mr Salmond for plaintiff, Mr J. W. White for defendant, Mr Salmond said that he understood the defence would be the Statute of Limitations. The goods were supplied over six years ago, but a payment had been made, bringing the case outside the statute. He made a preliminary objection to the defence upon the grounds that the notice had not been served within the prescribed time. Mr White said that the summons had only been served on Friday. As there was only one legal practitioner in Temuka defendant, had to go to Timaru, and the notice was served as soon as possible. His Worship decided to allow the defence to be put in. Plaintiff Btated that he supplied goods to plaintiff to the amount of £4 7s 6d. On May 20tb, 1889, the sum of 5s was paid on account. In January, 1891, witness opened a new ledger, carrying forward the old account. The account stood in the ledger as £6 2s Id. Mr Hobbs filed in March, 1888, and owed then £ll7s. This amount had been carried on in the expectation of defendant paying at some time. The account was also Bhown in a summary of accounts. In 1891 opened an account in the name of Mrs Geo. Hobbs. This account was paid up. Accounts had been rendered to defendant in the usual way at intervals of perhaps not less than once in every three months. Had spoken to Mr Hobbs several times, once specially about a fortnight ago. Defendant stated that he owed nothing, and had receipts to show he had paid all he owed. Asked him to show the receipts, and he (witness) would be satisfied.

By Mr White : Might have rendered the accounts-more than 24 times. Possibly did not render the accounts during the period Mrs Hobbs was dealing with him. No account was kept before 1891 of goods sold to Mrs Hobbs. (Counsel produced a bundle of accounts of different dates. Three of these were made out to Mrs Hobbs and two to Mr Hobbs). The difference might have been an error of the clerk. Believed they were all addressed to Mrs Hobbs. Would swear that Mr Hobbs's account was rendered several times prior to August, 1894. Could not prove personal delivery of the items. Hobbs might have filed in JuDe, 1888. Could not say if Mr or Mrs Hobbs paid the 5s credited. Had told Mr Bobbs that part of the time when he was unwell he had not rendered the account. Mr Hobbs, when spoken to, had denied ever paying so small au amount as ss. James Harrison, formerly clerk to plaintiff, recognised the entry of ss. It would be posted up from the cash book. By Mr White : Could not say if he received the 5s himself. Henry Gapper, clerk to plaintiff, had rendered Mr Hobbs's account during the Jast 14 months about half-a-dozen tiroes, By Mr White : Had rendered the account as standing iu Mr Hobbs's name. Had not rendered the account in detail until August. Could not say if the writing " Mrs" in ledger produced was in different writing to the words " George Hobbs." His Worship examined the writing and thought there was a difference. Thos. Sheen, shopman to Mr Brown, had delivered several accounts to Mr Hobbß. By Mr White: Delivered addressed envelopes. Knew nothing of the contents. J. Brown, recalled, said tho alteration referred to in the ledger was made by himself. The account was opened by his then clerk, Mr Buxton, under the name of George Hobbs. Witness altered it, as he had arranged to give eredit to Mrs Hobbß. headings we*e in Mr Buxton's writing, under the name of Mra George Hobbs. Thomas Buxton, formerly clerk in Mr Brown'" employ '. Left in August, 1893. Was in his eiT T>lo y years. It would be his duty to fle?* °!i* f«« 0 »» ts - Could not say distinctly if „_ obbs . \ —' count had been sent out. Most likaj 7 had. Accounts were sent out monthly as a rule. Sometimes, if nothing were added, the account might not go out for three months. Tho writing " Mrs " referred to was iu Mr Browu'B writing. Subsequent headings in his own. Could give no expl nation of some accounts being made to Mr and some to Mrs Hobbs, except by a clerical error. Could not say if the account now sued for was made out by himself and rendered when the other accounts were sent out. Mr White briefly sketched the line of defence, and called George Hobb3, the defendant, who stated that ho filed iu April, 1888. Did not believe he had received anything from Mr Brown on credit after he filed for some time. Was sure, amongst other thingß, that he did not get a box of tea. Never paid five shillings on account. Jfcocollected Mr Brown speaking about payment of the account .rendered. Then told him he owed nothing. There was no reason why the account should not have been rendered. Told him if it were due i'; ould have been brought forward. By Mr Salmond ; The only suggestion ho could make of the Recount appearing against him in the ledger w;is that old items v/f.TB brought forward. Was sure that he would not think of payiug so small a sum as 5s ou account. The account rendered August, 1894, was the first seut since his bankruptcy. Was surprised to receive it. Did not go then to see Mr Brown. Met Mr Brown three mouths afterwards. Did not tell Mr Brown he had receipts for this account. Was certain had never bought a box of tea from Mr Brown. By His Worship: Had dealt occasionally with Mr Brown after his bankruptcy, but paid cash for goods obtained. Had left off dealing with Mr Brown jvbont two years ago, and had not been asked for money. If his wife paid 5s it would be for something she had bought herself. Jemima Hobbs, wife of last witness, gave generally confirmative evidence. James Harrison, recalled, selected several items appearing iu the counter book as charged to defendant as being in his handwriting. Ho had no doubt that the goods were supplied. Mr Salmond said a number of the itoms were delivered by a person now away. He

desired to prove delivery bo as to destroy the allegation that the claim was a bogus one. If His Worship was satisfied as to the delivery it would discredit the evidence of defendant as to non-payment of the ss. His Worship intimated that he was not satisfied about anything. Mr White urged that all this detail should have been arranged before. Mr Salmond applied for an adjournment, which was refused, and accepted a nonsuit. Defendant's solicitor was allowed costs. The Court then rose.