DISTRICT COURT.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 22, 1 November 1871, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

Tuesday, October 31/ (Before Thos. Beckham, Esq,, District Jadge.) E. Styles and another v. Hector McKenzie. —This was a claim for £IOO, for work and labour done in .connection with repairs at Tararu wharf,* and was referred to arbitration. Mr. Macdonald and Mr. T>ler, the solicitors in the case, produced the following award :—“ Grahamstown, October 5, 1871. We, the undersigned having been appointed to value and arbitrate in the case of Styles v. MacKenzie, do value the work performed at'the sum of £BO, each party to pay their own expenses. (Signed) Daniel Simpson, C.E., John Smith, Carpenter. Witness : T. Simpson. —Judgment was then given in accordance with the arbitrator’s award. T. Hunter J. O’Hea and Wm. Buckley. —This was an action to recover the sum of £9O for an alleged non-comple-tion of a contract for the purchase and sale of 200 shares in the Waitemata G.M.C. Mr. Lascelles for the plaintiff, Mr. Beveridge for defendant.—James Dawson deposed : I am clerk to the plaintiffs, Hunter and Co., sharebrokers, Gralvamstown. I bought 200 shares in the Waitemata from Mr. O’Hea, on the 10th October, at 11s. per share. Gave £5 deposit and received a sale note (produced). It was signed by Mr. O’Hea. At the time of purchase I bad a pur'chaser for them, and sold to him at the price they were bought at. About an hour afterwards Mr. O’Hea came back and said he was in rather a fix about the shares, as he had found out by a telegram that his party in Auckland wanted to buy instead of to sell. He wanted me to get Mr. Hunter’s clients to let him off the bargain. They refused and said they must have their shares. I told him he would have to get them. He said he would get them if he could. On the following day about 4 p.m. I saw him again, and tendered him over £l5O in notes, and two blank transfers. [The Judge said he hoped this way of doing business would be soon at an end.] O’Hea refused to take the money and transfers, and said he had got a telegram from Auckland,and expected to get the shares there. He did not tell me that he could not possibly complete the transaction. Nothing of the kind. I did not go elsewhere expecting he would buy them. Communicated to Messrs. Hunter what had taken place. Understood that Mr. Hunter purchased 200 shares through Messrs. Saunders. [This evidence was objected to, and the Judge said it would be better to elicit this from Mr. Hunter than Mr. Dawson.] —Cross examined by Mr. Beveridge : Buckley’s name was not mentioned by O’Hca at all. O’Hea did not tell me that he bought on his own responsibility alone. Don’t know that Buckley’s name is John, nor what his Christian name is. I bought for Samuel Turtle and Alexander Wilson. I bought at 11s. less the usual commission 2.V per cent, which was in this case divided into three amongst three brokers. [The sale note put in evidence bore no stamp, and an argument took place whether it was admissable as evidence, and whether or not there was a penalty — the document purporting to be an acknowledgement for tho receipt of £s.] The Judge held that the document could not be received unless the penalty was paid.] Examination resumed. The shares that Mr. Hunter purchased were transferred to Turtle and Wilson at 11s. Mr. Hunter paid 19s. for them. I understood from O’Hea that he could not get the identical shares, but I understood that he was to supply others. He said he would get them.—Alexander Saunders deposed, that on the 13th October he purchased 200 Waitematas for Mr. Hunter at I9s. It was about the middle of the day. They could not be purchased cheaper. —By Mr. Beveridge : On the 12th October the price was from 19s. to 20s.— Thomas Hunter, sharebroker, Grahamstown, stated that, in consequence of a communication received from his clerk, he instructed Mr, Saunders to purchase 200 Waitematas. They were purchased at 19s. They were afterwards transferred to Turtle and Wilson. The firm of Hunter and Co. is witness himself. Mr. Beveridge said he should not contest the point that there was a sateTo O’Hea, but he submitted there was a misjoinder by the joining of Buckley, who, moreover, was sued as William Buckley, whereas his name was John. He called James O’Hea, who deposed : I know nobody of the name of William Buckley. No such person was in partnership with me. A person of the name of Buckley had an office with me, and our names were over the door, O’Hea and Buckley, sharebrokers, but the partnership ceased and the names were taken down, but before this transaction. John Buckley was the name of my partner. About two o’clock on the 10th October I received a telegram in consequence of which I sold 200 shares in the Waitemata to Mr Dawson at 11s, but immediately afterwards I got a telegram from Mr Derrom in Auckland saying that there had been a mistake. The telegram which I understood contained instructions to buy contained instructions to Bell. I at once communicated with Mr O’Hea, and told him I could not deliver the shares, but at his request I endeavoured to get them but could not. — The plaintiff’s counsel here agreed to pay the penalty on tho unstamped document above referred to (L 10), and to produce it iu evidence.—Mr O’flea was then asked if the signature O’Hea and Buckley was in kis hand-writing. He said it was. It was signed on the 10tli October. It was so signed from the force of habit, although the partnership did not exist. The Judge thought the sooner this force of habit was at end the better. By Mr Beveridge: I had no authority to use Buckley’s name after it was taken off the door, and the partnership ceased. The learned Judge in giving judgment said, there was no doubt in this case that there had been a contract, and that it had not been fulfilled, and it also seemed to him that Buckley as well a* O’Hea was liable. The main question was when had that contract been abrogated. Up to the afternoon of the 11th October it was clear there was no It was evident that Mr O’Hea had acted bona fide throughout, and the judgment he felt obliged to give would be against his own personal feelings, but nevertheless he must be guided by evidence. Judgment must pass for plaintiff for the difference between the 11s and 19s. Judgment was accordingly given for plaintiff for £BS. Mr Lascelles asked the Court to allow £1 10s instead of £1 for travelling expenses now that the steamer fare was raised. The Judge said in his opinion 25s would be about a fair thing. Mr Lascelles asked what amount the Court would allow for sharebrokers

attending as witnesses ? Sharebrokers were all Esquires. (Great laughter.)—The Judge observed that some people were more modest than others. Not long ago a member of the House of Representatives, who was a carpenter, when told that he was entitled to be called “ Esquire,” oil account of his being a member of the Legislature, declined to be so entitled.— The Court said he would allow Mr Saunders £1 a day and his passage money. According to the rules, professional men, merchants, &c., were entitled to £l, and the rest 10s. " ' * Thos. Brogan v. Joseph Reeve. —This was a case for appeal from the decision of this Court to the Supreme Court, and was set down for argument to-day. The grounds of appeal were that it had not been proved that the acts of the defendant were done maliciously, and that the Judge gave no direction whatever to the jury, and that he refused to record a nonsuit, and a verdict was given for defendants.— The matter was not gone into to-day, but was adjourned until next Court day. Jas. Auld v. Full Moon G.M.C. (Tafu). —This was an application for a winding-up order. The plaintiff did not appear in person nor by counsel, but did so by a non-professional agent.—This the Judge said he could not allow. The plaintiff had a perfect right to appear himself in person, or to employ counsel, but he could not appear by agent.—The case was accordingly ordered to stand over till next Court day. A. Lascelles v. John O’Groats G.M.C. —ln this case, which was before the Court on a former occasion, it was agreed that if nothing. further be done on the part of the defendants before next Court day, the plaintiff to proceed on the judgment obtained. Golden Horne G.M.C. v. Schedule of Contributors. —Mr Beveridge appeared for the Company.—Objections were made by Mary Robinson, Annie Robinson, and Hannah North, on the ground that they were married women, and had no money. —Their names were struck out. —Mr Dean, the Official Agent, proved service of notices, and produced schedule of contributions, &c. The Court ordered the schedule to be confirmed as altered. In Bankruptcy. In re William Carpenter. —Mr Dodd appeared for the bankrupt, who made application for his discharge. Tho liabilities were set down at £76 19s 6d, and the assets nil, except some mining shares said to be of no value.—No opposition was offered, and bankrupt accordingly received his discharge. This concluded the business, and the Court rose at 2.35 p.m.