RESIDENT MAGISTRATES’ COURT.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 7, 14 October 1871, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES’ COURT.

CIVIL JURISDICTION. Yesterday. Before W. Fraser, Esq., R.M. McLeod v. Ciirisp. —This was an action for £3, damage done to an anchor, and was heard on Monday last, and stood over for judgment, which the Court now gave in favoOr ,of plaintiff fdr the amount claimed and costs. Lawson v. Debmott. —Mr. Dodd said in this case (previously heard) he had to apply for execution to be stayed till Wednesday, for him to prepare affidavits to show that the matter had been settled. — Mr. Tyler said that he appeared for the execution creditor, and could not consent to the course proposed by Mr. Dodd.— His Worship said he could not interfere . in the matter now. The plaintiff obtained judgment, and himself took out execu-, tion. M. Henelly and others v. J. Heatij. —ln this case, which stood over from last Court day, his Worship gave judgment for plaintiff with costs. The action, it will be remembered, was for £l9 10s., for nondelivery of shares in the Pacific claim,* Coromandel, and the defence was that fraudulent representation had been made by plaintiff as to the price of the shares ; but his Worship considered this defence had not been fully made out, and when such defences were set up they required to * be carefully proved. J. Barthlem v. G. Macdonald—An action to recover the sum of £SO, for the alleged unlawful detention of a quantity of logs.—On ap lication of Mr. Miller for Mr. M acdonald the case was adjourned to the 27th inst., on payment of costs of the day, which amounted to £G 7s, several of the witnesses coming from a distance. M. J. Perston v. W. Messenger.— Claim for 7s. Gd., highway rates. Case withdrawn on application of Mr. Perston. M. Costigan v. J. P. Percy.— Claim for £2O, for alleged breach or contract for sale of shares in the Otago claim. Adjourned to next Court day, on application of Mr. Tyler. J. Tilsey v. Taupo Waitai and another. —Claim for L 27 10s. on a P. N. judgment for plaintiff. J. R. Bavi.is v. D. Wilson. —This was a claim for L 8 5s Gd on a judgment summons. The defendant did not appear, and a medical .certificate from Dr. Alexander Fox was handed in, stating that ho was too ill to attend. —The plaintiff said the defendant was quite well yesterday, and said lie . was coming to take the benefit of the Bankruptcy Acf. The plaintiff was then put into the box, when he proved that he had obtained judgment for the above amount.' On Thursday he saw defendant apparently in good health. He came into witnesses’ office and said he was going to file liis schedule, and that witness! would get' no money. Witness said “ I shall oppose yonr discharge.’ To this he replied—“ I don’t care—you’ll get nothing.” His Worst! ; p ordered' that a warrant be issued for the apprehension of defendant. J. Brown v. Peter Barnes.— Action for LlO Is. 3d. on a judgment summons. Mr. Dodd for plaintiff—defendant in person. Defendant was examined as to his means and ability to pay, when he said he would liave paid hut could not get the money ; had been working lately as a miner at L2 per week, but had a, brother to support who was' ill—the debt has been owing - 12 ' months—would have paid if he could ; has a share in abut, but no other property. His Worship soid he would not make an order at present under the circumstances, hut defendant must remember that he was liable for this debt, and would ultimately have to pay it. W. Hough v. J. Robb.— Claim for L 3 18s. Gd. for goods sold and delivered. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed and costs, IDs. J. Baker v. W. Kelly.— Claim for LI 14s. for board and lodging. Judgment for plaintiff. -. > ■ City of St. Andrew’s G. M. Co., v. Rqwb.— Claim for Lll 7s. Gd- for calls.— Mr. Miller said be appeared for the compaujq arid produced a written authority authorising his partner, Mr. MacDonald, to act as solicitor for the company, ana that he (Mr. Miller), appeared as counsel, instructed by Mr. MacDonald. Mr. Dodd for defendant, said this authority did not do. It was not sufficient to authorise Mr. Miller to appear. . His Werthip considered Mr. Dodd was right in his objection, and tjiat the authority to Mr. MacDouald was not an authority to Mr. Miller Plaintiffs i nonsuited. O. A. Rayson v. M. Casey. —This was an action to Recover the sum of LI 8 10s. for an alleged breach of contract for nondelivery of two shares in the Thsmes G. M. Co. Mr. Tyler for plaintiff. Mr. Lasceljes and Mr. Miller for defendant. Mr. Tyler for plaintiffs, having opened the ease, called tho defendant, Morris Casey, who deposed that he made a contract with one llrune to sell two shares foi him liv the Thames G. M. C.; was unacquainted with the forms —signed a document ; don t know what a transfer is—bought the shares from two different parties told Brown fo sell the shares —he did so, and witness got L 29 per share ; there was aiafterwafds some trouble about the transfer, and it was sent back; 'Witness offered to buy back the shares at the market price, Told plaintiff, who was threatening to take legal proceedings, that Brown was authorised to sell. Witness afterwards gave a transfer in place of

Brown’s transfer to Louis Rich. The first transfer was complained of because the signature was not right. Witness has lived j in French- countries, and has been in the habit'of spelling his Christian name “ Morris but thinking it ought to be spelt “Maurice,” altered it. Rich told me that Rayson said he meant to save a pound or two out of the transaction for damages. Got the money for thesa shares on the 11th September.—Edward Brown Remember'selliog two shares in the Thames - Gold: Mining Company, and signing a transfer for thertW’ Sold them for £29, less per cent, commission. Received cheque after bankriiours, on the 9th September, and got the cash, the following day. Mr Casey, ’ the"' defendant, authorised witness to sign the transfer.— By Mr Lascelles : The documents now produced were only partly filled up when I signed them. /I sold the Shares to Louis' Rich. Do not know whether Rich was buying for another party. Did not know that Rayson (the plaintiff) was interested. In consequence of something being saidabout a dispute arising out of the signatures, witness saw Rayson, who said he expected to be indemnified from loss. Did not authorise Mr Rich to go to Auckland, or incur any expense in the matter. ---Louis Rich deposed to purchasing the shares in question from last witness. Bought them for a person named Hopkins. The price was £29 per share, less commission. Went to Mr Fairburn’s. office to get the transfer signed, and also get an order authorising witness to sell. —Examined by Mr Miller; 1 was not in the first instance purchasing for Rayson ; Hopkins was my client. 1 bad the shares from Brown to sell, and found a purchaser ultimately in Rayson (the defendant). — R. W. Fairburn, sharebroker, deposed : Remember Brown coming with Rich to the office on the fith September. Brown signed the transfer as “ Morris Casey.” The transfer now produced is ! he same. It was. signed in blank. It is a common practice for purchasers to sign a blank transfer, but it is a bad custom. They are often passed through several hands before the vendor’s name is appended. It was Rich who introduced Brown to witness, saying that he (Rich) had found a purchaser, which witness first of all understood was to be a Mr Hopkins, but Mr Rayson became the purchaser. Thames shares were at £3O on 14th September. On the 21st of the same month, the market price was £25. They have been as low subsequently as £2O 10s. —By Mr Miller: Rich ■ is not my partner. I buy on my own account as little as possible. The authority to sell was in writing. ,1 thought Brown was Casey. Rich and myself divided the commission in the transaction. Mr Rich just said he.had sold to Hopkins (sale note produced —Casey to Hopkins). Mr Rich said afterwards he could not find Hopkins so had sold to Casey. By the R.M.: Mr Rich went out of the office to get the money from Hopkins to pay Brown, as I understood.—Robert Somerville, Secretary of the Thames G.M.0., deposed : On the 9th September Morris Casey was registered for two shares in the company. Remember one of the transfers produced, but not the other. The signatures are not alike. 1 don’t remember the documents now produced being presented. It would not have been accepted as it is not in proper form. I remember the other document being presented. It was refused. Ultimately a third was presented, which was received and registered. By Mr Lascelles : The third document produced is complete in form ; the other two are not properly filled up nor stamped.—Oliver Alfred Rayson, the plaintiff, deposed : I remember the 9th September. I purchased two shares in the Thames G.M.C. on that day from ; Casey through Rich. Got a transfer (produced). Sent it to Auckland. It was returned. Afterwards took it to the company’s office. It was refused bocause the signatures were incorrect. Saw Rich about the matter, .and ultimately Casey and Brown came to my father’s house, and Casey offered to give another transfer. Refused at the moment, as I did not know that the man purporting to be Casey was really Casey. Afterwards took a transfer from Casey, which was sent to Auckland and returned. Casey subsequently gave another transfer. The price of Thames shares on the 20th September was £23. Purchased at £29 10s. Was offered £3l. The claim is for the difference between these two prices, for expenses in going to Auckland and back, and for various telegrams.—By Mr Miller: Rich told me he was selling for Casey. Never told Mr Rich I should look to him and not to Casey. —Mr Burt, sharebroker, gave evidence as to the price of Thames shares. Described them as fluctuating between £3O and £24 from the middle of Septembeixto the present time. It is customary for brokers to buy and sell without a transfer at each transaction. —His Worship said this was a very bad practice, and the brokers were liable to fine if the Government was defrauded of the stamp money.—Thomas Rayson, the father of plaintiff, deposed to some high words having passed between the parties in this transaction as to the manner in which it had been conducted. Did not himself interfere in the transaction.-—Mr Lascelles addressed the Court for the defence, contending that plaintiff must be nonsuited, as lie had altogether failed to make out his case ns against Casey. There was no evidence whatever of a contract between the parties. If his worship was of a different opinion the defendant’s were ready to answer the plaintiff’s case.—Mr Tyler submitted that a sufficient case had at all events been made out to call upon defendant to answer.,, There'-was evidence that a contract was made by the parties through their agents.—The Resident Magistrate said he considered the evidence would not warrant him iu this state of the 'proceedings to grant a nonsuit. —Edward Brown was then re-called by Mr. Lascelles, and stated that he did not know that Rich was buying for Rayson. The witness repeated what lie had previously stated in his examination in chief.—Morris Casey, the defendant, iwas ye-called, and recapitulated his version of what took place at Mr. Fairburn’s office, adding that he made the remark at the time that sharebrokers were all a set of swindlers. —The Resident Magistrate said he was of opinion that the plaintiff had not made out his case, and should therefore order a nonsuit with costs. T. Macfalane, Trustee in, the estate of D. I\. Clarkson v. J. Coldicutt.— Claim for £2 15s for goods sold and delivered. Mr. Miller for plaintiff ; defendant appeared in person, anil denied that he owedthe plaintiff anything. Mr. Meyers was called to prove the debt, but failing to do no plaintiff was ordered to be nonsuited. Vy. F. Brown v.Albit.nia G.M.C.—Claim for 15s for value of work and labour done iu working in shifts on the above compauys ground. Mr. MPler , appeared for defendants, who denied the debt. The plaintiff deposed that the money was due and owing, and produced a time-book containing entries in support of his case, lie called a witness who, however, declined to go into the box unless his expenses were paid, and the coin not being forthcoming, his testimony was dispensed with.—The manager of the company was called, and stated that defeudaut had been fully paid

for what he had done, and produced his time book to prove that the items set down in defendants bill of particulars had been liquidated. The plaintiff, gave receipts, but they- were in Auckland. Judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed, and costs £1 14s. ... .Nevada G.M.C. v. H. G. Collett.— Claim for £6 5s for calls. Mr. Tyler for defendant.—R. M. Scott, legal manager of the company deposed that the defendants name appeared ou -the companys register as a holder of fifty shares) and that he is ■ indebted in the amount, now sought to he recovered for two separate calls duly made and advertised. —The defence was that defendant was not a shareholder, and that ■at ’the time the calls were made there really were no directors properly appointed, there was no power to make these calls. Moreover tho rules of the company were not produced in evidence.—H. G. Collett, the defendant, deposed that on the 17th May there was a meeting of the Nevada G.M.C. He was present acting as a proxy. There were 17 present. Witnsss handed in a transfer and was desirous of becoming a shareholder, hut the meeting would not recognise him. Mr Scott told witness, who was proposed as a director, that he was not eligible, and he thereupon refused to have anything more to do with the Company. Never authorised anybody to sign the memorial in his behalf. Considers that he is not a shai-eholder. —By Mr Scott: Do not you remember your saying that you could not recognise the transfer then because the company was not registered ? Never told you to put the • transfer through when the company was registered.—By the R.M.: I never went to get back the transfer because I thought there was an end of the matter, and that it would not be useful. I do not claim to. be a shareholder. I never was.— The Resident Magistrate reserved judgment.

J. Corkiiill v, A. Betssell. —Mr Miller for plaintiff* Mr Dodd for defendant. —Claim for L2 7s 6d for wages, damage done to a uniform jacket,and for the detention of a shirt.—The plaintiff stated that he had worked for defendant as cook for four days at 5s per day. He left the jacketaud shirt with defendant, and when witness- went to ask for his wages and clothes the defendant told him to go to li and take law for it. Had witnesses to.provethat defendant threw the jacket now produced into the fire, thereby doing damage to it to the exleut-of LI. The defendant offered to witness a ragged old shirt in place of his own, which was a new one, but this offer he declined. Is not indebted to Mr Beissell Paid him all that he advanced for passage from Auckland and for board and lodging. He did offer witness apair of trousers and an old waistcoat but the tilings were threadbare,and not worth wearing. You could see right through them.—P. A. Jones 'gave coroborative evidence of plaintiff’s statement, and said he saw the jacket now produced lying in the fireplace at Mr Mr Beissell’s and took it up so that it should not be destroyed.—The defendant stated that he gave plaintiff employment so as to work out a debt- Never agreed to give him any wages, but if he behaved well he was to have enough to pay his passage elsewhere. Witness turned him out of the place because he absented himself from bis work. Never damaged bis jacket. He owes witness L2 3s at the present lime. Did throw the jacket out of the room into the kitchen, but not into the fire, that witness is awaje of.—Henry Mowbray deposed to hearing plaintiff say he owed Beissell some money.—Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed, execution to be stayed for a week to enable defendant to bring a cross action if he thinks fit. Siiellbuun v Payne. —Claim for L 3 for discharging machinery out of the brig 1 Hope.’—Mr Miller appeared for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff, LI 14s, and costs 19s. The Court rose at a quarter past six.