DISTRICT COURT.

Thames Star, Volume XI, Issue 3620, 3 August 1880, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

THIS DAY.

(Before J. E. Macdonald, Esq., District Judge.)

UNION SASH AND DOOE CO. V. WILSON.

Claim, £51 5s 6d, timber supplied. Mr Miller for plaintiff, and Mr Dodd for defendant.

J. J. Wilson, deposed—l am licensee of the Tairua Hotel. I am a working tenant for Mr Ehrenfried. Some alterations bad to be made in the hotel before the license could be renewed. I applied to Mr Ehrenfried for authority to order the timber, and I receired a letter giving me that authority. I went to the mill, and on showing the letter from Mr Ehrenfried, received the timber. None of-the articles were supplied on my own credit. They, have never had occasion to refuse me credit. ; By Mr Dodd—l only mentioned Mr Ehrenfried's name when I gave the letter.:;;' -■■■■• .-■■■' : : "■'.' : .■■■■•■'' ;''::;;':':; Artlmr Russell deposed—l know Mr Ebrenfried and the defendant. I wrote those letters on Mr Ehrenfried's authority. I acted under Mr Ehrenfried's authority in all that I did. James Harding deposed—l am a mill manager for the company at Tairua. The timber was supplied to the defendant. Before getting the timber defendant came up and a conversation took place. I was not present when Wilson applied to Mr Thody for the timber. Mr Thody told me that : he had refused Wilson the timber. I have the receipts for timber supplied to Wilson. I have given defendant credit before for small amounts. I hare refused him credit for large amounts. It is my duty to see that persons either pay: for timber ordered or give some security. The goods were oharged to Mr Wilson in the books.

By Mr Dodd—l refused defendant credit before he got the guarantee from Mr Ehrenfried. (At this stage the witness fell down in a fainting fit, but recovered after having a drink of water).

Mr D.odd addressed the Court in defence and said he considered the goods had not really been delivered to Mr Wilson, but to Mr Bhrenfried. He did not think Mr Wilson would have made himself responsible for £40 or £50 without sufficient guarantee. His Honor gave judgment for plaintiff with costs, £9 16s.

GOLDEIT CBOWN G.M. CO. V. THAMES COUNTY COUNCIL. ■.

, Claim, £92. In this case judgment was given for plaintiff with costs. BANK OP NSW ZEALAND V. THOMAS SCOTT. Claim, £24 4s, dishonored promissory note. (Judgment confessed), costs £4. The Court then adjourned.