RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 143, 25 March 1872, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Saturday, March 23. (Before W. Fraser, Esi-, E.M.) Smile Again G.M.C. v. Lascelles. — Mr Macdonald for plaintiff, Mr Dodd for defendant.—This wrb an action to recover

the sum of £SO for the unlawful conversion of a certain deed of assignment.— E. K. Tyler, solicitor, Grahamstown, stated that he is solicitor for the plaintiffs in this action. Has seen the document, which forms the subject matter of this action, on the Ist march. It was prepared by Mr Lascelles. On that day a case was heard in tin’s Court—Duke and others—against this company. The document was there on the table, and was alluded to in evidence. It was described as an assignment of the interest of Duke and Barty in the “ Bon Espoir ” lease to the company. —Mr Lascelles stated that he was the agent appointed to negotiate matters between Duke and Barty and Hie Smile Again Company. Witness was cross-examined to show that Mr Lascelles was acting for Duke and Barty only. —Mr Lascelles said lie was instructed by Mr Jones to prepare a deed of assignment, and that he was acting as solicitor for the company at the time, and not for Duke and Barty. He said he retained the deed, because bis bill of costs was not paid. He said he did not hold it for Duke and Barty, and that he had never applied to them for payment. lie said lie held it for the company, and would give it up to them on payment of his bill of costs. Judgment was reserved in the Duke and Barty case. Witness was afterwards instructed to defend an action brought by Mr Lascelles against the company. Some conversation took place as to defendant not having a retainer under the seal of the company, and as to bis right of lien on the deed. Mr Lascelles said lie would take £5, and ultimately agreed to take £4, and to give up the deed. Witness said he would get a meeting of the directors together, and have this £4 paid. Mr Lascelles said, “ Very well.” Witness then said, “ I’ll hand you over £4 in the course of the week, and you’ll hand me the deed.” Mr Lascelles said, “ Very well : that will do.” On Tuesday witness was supplied with the £4, and tendered it to Mr Lascelles, asking him at the same time to give up the deed. He declined to give it up, as he did not know what effect it would have in an action then pending, and said he would see Mr Macdonald. On the 14th witness saw Mr Lascelles again, and offered to pay him the £4, and also 15s—the latter out of witness’s own pocket fer subpoenaes and summonses taken out by Mr Lascelles. Witness expressed bis surprise at the course Mr Lascelles had taken. He (hen said for the first time that ho held the deed for Duke and party. Witness paid the money, and again asked for the deed. lie refused to give it up. Witness told him his word was not to be taken ; that witness had been grossly deceived by him, and would never take his word again.—James Slater, manager of the “ Smile Again,” stated that on the strength of the deed he had given up 400 shares in the company to bind the bargain. He paid £4 of the company’s money to Mr Tyler for him to get this deed from Mr Lascelles. Was authorised by the directors to do so. —T. W. Jones, one of the directors of the Smile Again, was also examined on the part of plaintiff.—For the defence, A. 11. W. Lascelles, solicitor, stated that he is the defendant in this action. lie prepared the deed in question at the request of Mr T. W. Jones, on behalf of the Smile Again, in December last. Duke and Barty at first objected to sign it, but eventually they did so, on Mr Jones saying “ Mr Lascelles can keep the deed and return all the papers, until the money is paid.” They then signed the document. -Jones also signed it. Witness declined to give up the deed to Mr Tyler, because it was held as security for the money being paid to Duke and Barty, and had their signatures. Witness agreed to consult Mr Macdonald on the subject. Wr.s not acting in any way for Duke and Barty up to the time of the execution of the deed, but agreed to bold the deed as- a bailee for both parties. Held the deed for the company up to that time.—James Duke stated that when the deed was executed Mr Jones said Mr Lascelles was to keep it until witness and Barty were paid. They have not been paid. Saw Jones sign the document now produced,'but his signature has been cut off. David Barty gave evidence similar to that of Mr Duke. Henry Lascelles, son of the plaintiff, stated that on the 14th of the present month Mr Tyler came to the office and said : “So you’re not going to give up that deed.” Mr Lascelles replied, “You can’t expect me to give it up until Duke ami Baity are paid.” Mr Tyler put some money on the table, and some further conversation took place about subpoenaes. Mr Tyler paid down £4 16s, and got a receipt. When he went away he said he would not visit Mr Lascelles again. When the deed was executed Mr Jones said Mr Lascelles was to keep it until Duke and Barty were paid.—The Court reserved judgment until next Court day.

D. (Jiimk v. Lynch and Bonak.—Claim for £2 8s Hd for butcher’s meat. Judgment for plaintiff.

It. 11. Norman v. J. Dougherty. —This was a judgment summons case for £3 11s —Defendant was examined as to his means and ability to pay, a.nl said be had not got the money or any property, but some scrip that was not worth much. Is not going to leave the Thames.—The R.M. made an order for payment on Monday, or in default one month’s imprisonment. The Court rose at 5 o'clock p.tn.