Defended Cases.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2056, 6 August 1875, Page 3

Defended Cases.

SEIFEBT V. BABE

Claimed £5 2s.—Mr Dodd for plaintiff; Mr Macdonald for defendant. The defence was that there was an account stated all of which with the exception of 10s was paid. James Burrell said he had heard at Butt's Hotel, as far a,^ h,e could ijndcfgn arrangement, between thrtwo parties, made for Uabe to pay^JSeifert thirty shillings in lieu of all claims, and that one pound had. been paid; and ten shillings was still owing. . Seifert the plaintiff-acknowledged hav-j ing received one pound, but stated it was p.nly received on sjecount, and not as a discharge from the debt. His Worship thought there was not sufficient defence, and gave judgment for ■plaintiff £5 2s, and costs £2 4s, KENDALE AND OTHERS Y. NONPAREIL GOLDMTNING CO. This'was a claim for £2 2s, £110s paid into Court. ' . Eendale said that he and two others hacf agreed to do work for the Nonpareil; the amount claimed was for making ladders to enable them to complete a con-: tract, the sum claimed beyond the thirty shillings was for additional ladders made by authority of the manager. .. John Gribble corroborated this statement. , . . „:,, Jame3Cooi;ea, working manager of the Nonpareil mine, said he only agreea to

find the material, as they said they could make the new ladders as quick as they could take the old ones out from the place where they were, and wanted to get on with their contract.

His Worship ordered plaintiff to take the money paid into Court. No costs allowed.

BINNEY Y. SNODaBASS.

Claim £13 6s. Mr Brassey for plaintiff; Mr Macdonald for defendant.

£1 5s and £1 Is 6d were paid into Court.

Edwin Binney being sworn said defendant was indebted to him £13 6s, and produced his delivery book and a book which had special reference to transactions with Snodgrass in proof. Mr Macdonald cross-questioned the plaintiff at great length about the way in which his books were kept, and contended that the books produced (the day-book not being one of them) were insufficient to prove the debt, as Snodgrass denied owing the amount. His Worship also remarked on the negligent way in which Mr Binney kept his accounts.

Mr Binney stated that his accounts, besides being clear as a pike-staff, were sufficient for anybody. Frederic Smith swore a bag of chaff and a bag of rice had been delivered on the same day to Snodgrass ; also that he had delivered various bags of flour to Snodgrass. By Mr Macdonald—" When I speak of delivering the bags I mean Snodgrass took them away on those days." Mr Macdonald said the accounts delivered were informal, and that all the transactions for flour between plaintiff and defendant had hitherto been made in tons and not in bags, and that for these tons they had receipts, and that on every gound the plaintiff had failed to make good his claim. His Worship said he must have the date of the sale of the flour.

At this stage of the proceedings, David Snodgrass was called, and swore he had paid for all the flour he had received from Mr Binney, and that be had bought it' all by the ton. . • On being _ cross-examined by Mr Brassey, Snodgrass denied that the initials shown him in the account book between himself and Mr Binney were his. He pointed out some that were.

[Neft sitting.]