COURTS.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 214, 15 June 1872, Page 3

COURTS.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.— Yesterday. [Before W. Fraser, Esq., R.M.] W. H. GRACE V. G. W. PEARCE. This was an action to recover £5 damages for the non-delivery of a parcel at Ohinemuri, and stood over for judgment from the previous Court day. The R.M. observed that there was no evidence adduced as to whom the parcel was to be delivered, and that on that point the plaintiff must be non-suited. ABRAHAM JACOBS V. ED. STAURCII. This was a judgment summons case for £3 16s. The defendant was examined as to his means and ability to pay. Defendant stated that he was a seaman, but had been out of employment for the last three weeks, and had no means to pay, hut expected to be employed on board the 1 Policeman' shortly at £4 10s a month, but would not be paid up until the end of six months. The R.M. said he would not make any order in the case. J. E. MACDONALD V. J. 11. STRATFORD. This was a claim for £l4 10s 4d for professional services and money paid. No defence was offered, and judgment was given for plaintiff for the ainouut claimed and costs, £2 Is. FLAGSHIP AND GOLDEN ANCHOR G.M.C. V. W. ADAMS. This was a claim for £5 12s 6d for calls. Mr Tyler apDeared for plaintiff. Mr Wildman, the Company’s manager, proved the debt. No defence was offered, and judgment was given for plaintiff with costs. W. W. DIXON V. E. V. AND G. V. DIXON. This was a claim for £SO for wages due. ') Mr Tyler stated that the defendants in this case had filed a declaration in bankruptcy. There was a set-off hi this action, but he (Mr Tyler) bad not had the opportunity of getting tbe books from Auckland to prove it, and he must ask for an adjournment for a week. The case was accordingly adjourned until the 21st inst., the costs of the day to be costs in the cause.

L. EHRENFRIED V. EDWARD HYDE. This was an action of ejectment. On the application of Mr Tyler, the case was adjourned for a week. M. CULLIS V, E. AVERY. This was an action for £3 9s 3d for goods sold and delivered. The defendant did not appear, and plaintiff having proved the debt, judgment was given for the amount claimed, and 10s costs. E. GEORGE V. J. CRAIG. Mr Campbell for plaintiff; Mr Macdonald for defendant. This was an action to recover the sum of £l6 4-s sd, goods sold and delivered. The goods, it appeared, were sold to Craig and others, who, Mr Macdonald submitted, ought to have been joined, and that plaintiff was not entitled to recover as against Craig alone. He applied to tbe Court to amend the plaint by adding the words “ and company,” so as to make it George v. Craig and Co. The R.M. did not accede to the application, but said he must nonsuit plaintiff but without costs. There was no doubt tbe money was owing, and plaintiff could bring another action in proper form.

M. MCDONNELL jV. E. HONISS AND E. YOUNG. Mr Macdona’d for plaintiff ; Mr Tyler for defendant. This was an action to recover £2O damages. The plaint set forth that the defendants in or about the month of April last fraudulently represented to plaintiff that they had authority to accept on behalf of Alexander Byers from the plaintiff 1G shares in the Emily G.M.C., Registered, in satisfaction of a certain debt of £4 6s then due by the plaintiff to the said Alexander Byers, and that defendants accepted the shares from the plaintiff in satisfaction of the debt, the dufendants then well knowing that they had no such authority, and that such representation was false, and that by reason of such representation the plaintiff incurred considerable expense in defending an action brought by Alexander Byers against the present plaintiff. E. C. Young stated : l am a member of the firm Honiss and Young, debt collectors, and was employed some time ago by Mr Byers to collect a debt. I had an authority from Mrs Byers to take such a payment as would cover the debt I had no direct authority from Mr Byers. I made an arrangement with Mr Mason in Auckland for a transfer of some scrip in the Emily. I know Mr Jones who said he’d give £3 10s for the lot and cry quits, but the bargain was not concluded. Mr Byers said he never gave authority to Young or Honiss and Young to take anything else but money in satisfaction of the debt, nor had Mrs Byers any authority to this effect, nor had Jones. John Braharn, legal manager, Coromandel, stated that he wrote a letter (produced) to Mr Young, in reference to Mr McDonnell’s debt, to which Mr Young replied, accepting scrip in the Emily claim as payment of McDonnell’s debt. Mr Young subsequently called upon witness, and said he was prepared to accept Emily scrip in settlement of the debt. He said he was acting as agent of Mrs Byers. The scrip was ultimately given over to Jones as Young’s agent in Auckland. Jones gave a receipt for it (produced.) Jones, clerk in the office of Messrs Jackson and Russell, solicitors, Auckland, deposed te going with Mr Young to Mr Braham’s office in reference to this matter. Witness handed over the scrip to Mr Mowbray, the broker, for sale, with the authority of Mr Young. There was an agreement between witness and Mr Byers for a partnership, but it was not carried out. Might have represented that he was a partner to Mr Braharn. Such representation was made with intent to get this scrip, sell it, and appropriate the money. There is no ill-feeling between witness and Byers. Never offered to pay half the expenses of the action against McDonnell. Did offer to assist Byers in getting him through the Court. Mr Byers has sued witness, who has partly paid the amount. Martin McDonnell, manager of the Challenger G.M.C., and plaintiff in this

action, stated : Byers Uteri' him for i.mmi and lodging. Witness defend,-d the action on the grouud that it had been settled Inpayment of this scrip as had been agreed upon by Messrs Honiss and Young. It cost £2O to defend the action. Mr Tyler submitted that plaintiff must be non-suited. To establish his cause plaintiff must prove that there had been a false representation made, but this had not been proved, but, that on tho contrary there had been no deceit whatever on the part of Mr Young. Tho R. M. said he would reserve his judgment. The Court then adjourned.