RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 3878, 3 June 1881, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

THISJJAY, (Before M. Kenriok, Esq., 8.M.) CIVIL BIDB.. „. In the followiog ceset judgment waj given for plaintiff with **}*i-I*°£*J v. Jobwton, telly T..C««mi«gi, Mpmflg ▼• Say. "". ' - , * COKBETT T. KB»NBDTrW»L.,^ This was a claim for £50. il■■■«■.; , Mr Miller for plaintiff and Mr Bratuy for defendant. The defendant deposed that he wag la auctioneer and commission agent afHamU* ton. In December last he wm initroeted by plaintiff to sell 200 shares in the Te Aroha G.M.Co. He succeeded/ •* disputing of SO at toi *ad<lodged;the*QMy with Frater 8r05... at Auckland. Os risiting Auckland, Fi> Scherff agreed to take the balance of the shares at the price then ruling, and paid;* deposit of £5. This was on Bth December- Qn 4he 14$h of January witness.received the traiufers from plaintiff. He went to Scherff, who refused to take them, saying he would forfeit the.deposit. ' Witn^s* la* had rery little experience in,, sharebrokiu, and he believed he was doing light v letting Scherff off with the deposit. He received three letters from Mr Milltr, but did not think it proper to fitly to any of them. He did pot ask Mr Cothett fotf instructions to sell the sbartsY He receired the transfers on the 14th of January, and the, sale was on Deeembat Bth. He had an office at Hamilton, bat transacted . buaioess *t several nlawi Frater Bros, did all hit busineet tasherea in Auckland. He was traveUinjr. about during December, and receired the later informing him that the transfers weft waiting for him while he was in ]&■& ton. He concluded the tale hii>wif ia Auckland. Mr Scherff/s reason far not concluding the purchase of the afcaree was the delay of the transfers. It wif advertised that he waa Messn Attar Bros.' agent. He was not aware that the transfers were handed to Frater Bros, os his account, but he supposed they were. The transfers for the 50 share* were not sent with those for the 100. ' '

By Mrt Br.Mr~The trvufcn pm. dueed are those I reoMrvd from Corbett through Prater Bros., for the pnrpoM of selling the 150 shares to Mr SeheHF. I toM feherff »hoie»a«ref tneywe*. I hate not been in a position to amulet* the sale. I still hold the £5 deposited with me by Mr Seherff. I didnotfeeeire any direct reply to the telegram Mat by me to Mr Gorbettfrom Mr Frater'aoiEee. That was the only telegram sent 4S» market pri«e of the shares at the time of the sale was 6s, but he did not think thiY were saleable- at the time.Mr Seherff refused to complete the sale. Cross-examined by Mr Miller—l fcait written out transfers in other run, bat in this case I did not do so, as Jt mi»jlil have caused too much delay in getliiif. them signed by Corbett. I telegraphed to Corbett when the shares were sold, Mt had not sabseqnentiy eorrespoade^ with him. I would hare-receired eoBUMMWiI

on the ■ale, had it been carried owfcV By His Worship—Tha not that the transfers are not properly railed* «p had nothing to do with Mr ScherfTs refusal to complete the said. * ; < John Prater, sirorn, deposed—He wat one of the firm of Frater Broe. Hii bro'her James, did not now, belong to tha firm, he being too ill to attend to it, and therefore could not attend the Court. Jfo had nerer known a ease when the deposit on the sale of mining abates was forfeited when the sale was not earned oat. ~ So far as he knew the firm were not the agents of Mr Corbett. As an agent for the sale of shares, he would communicate the fast of a sale being broken off to his I'linM, but he could not saj if wifH'Ho cinetoum share*brokers. Shares in the Te Afeha Gold Mining Co., sold on the Bth B#ee«. ber at 6s (id and 7s, and on the 13th*t «*, but on January the 4th they, were down to 3s. It is the usual custom for the selliaf broker to write out the transfer* eeyept when his principal was of * dicta***. The handwriting on the transfers was {ike that of his brother James, bat he ooalA not swear to it. - , . *' *" Bj Mr Brassey—The transfers in question had not passed throvgh hit hands before. I could not complete a sale from those transfers unless I knew the signature. By Mr Miller—lf I did not make out the transfers mjself, I wottU-jajfA-fafr ficient information to snj ntineiMi Ml enable him to do it. > -, f * B. McDonald Scott corrohcteied the last witness evidence. A sisi shfntw was not justified in giving a pafehate* the option of either taking or ftrleitfn the shares. . ' nTT „'■■?■ Corbett. deposed—That he saw Mr Hill at Te Aroha in Koreatber last, and gare him some shares to tell for. him, He soon afterwards, saw defendant, who told him that he had sold 50 shares at Ba. Witness told liin. to aeU the balaaoe of the 150 shares in Auckland, bat gave him no speoial instructions, Jfo neetvwl a telenram on the Bth December that the shares had been sold at Bs. The telegram did not state to whom they were sold, nor did it ask him to. send the transfers. He never told Mr Hill tbVt *W JhSe!: were his agente. He wm «*«** thelfiW was acting for Frater Bros., nai that they acted for bia. £MS id one transaetton, Prater Bnm. t kOj not been his Kento. He gave the Mr Hill. He wrote to Hill «|rt reoerred no reply, nor had he anj 'ffjJwhlrinatiSl from himr If he had knohk Im^snhu' had not been sold Ite.womldlKSilSiS in the market, -Th« dsnun ttiluiM Counsel addr««sed the Ce*rt'it i s l tl^ His Worship reserved judgment.