R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 4, Issue 1019, 10 March 1882, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON, THURSDAY. ■ & Co, v A, IW^EbnaM),—Debt Lls 17a 9d. j {Continued.) J. lorns (in answer to .Mr Rotrall); I was.one of the original Committee, and attended the first meeting, which - was held in the Temple Chambers. Mr Dalrymple took the. minutes of. this meeting. The meeting was, I understood, convened by Mr Worth, Mr E. V. Smith, and others, Nothing was exhibited at that meeting, as emanating from you. I took no part in communicating to you the result of it. I did not wait upon you with Mr Smith respecting the address, because we could not find you, It was after the first meeting that Dalrymple was ousted from the secretaryship and I was elected. The first meeting at the Temple Chambers resolved itself into a Committee. Mr Dalrymple was compelled to resign, because his loyalty was doubted. I did not inform you that I was elected as secretary, as I understood you were aware of the fact, because it was published in both papers.' Ido not know whether Dalrymple waited upon you to ask you to intervene to save his office, I do not remember the date when I brought up some accounts to you, The last payment I got from you was a cheque for £lO. Mr Renall: I heard you were hard up and so I sent it you. ■ I paid you £lO on the 22nd of October, and a second on the 29th of October. On the receipt of either payment did I dictate'to you'how the money was to be spent? ' Mr lorns: No I j":r,n ■ ;Mr, Renall: Do you remember when jou brought the accounts my saying novei niind them, the money is gone T Do you remember telling me about the resblution of the Committee asking for £25? ;J. lorns: I believeil-told you a 0! : ■Mr Renall: Did I tell you that I woult not exceed the legal expenses', lest ] should be involved under the Corrupi Practices Act ? ! J, lorns;'l know you made somi reference to it. Mr Repall; .Do you remember the first night of the races ? J. lorns! Yes. I took you up in mi barouche A Committee meeting tool place in my office on the same evening, ! did not attend it. Mr Renall pointed out that Mr Bisl said Mr lorns was present at it. J. lorns fluid ho went with Mr Smith ti see Mr Renall, bu(i foqnd hitp neither al his own house or the mill house. Mr Renall; We must have erossed, yoi going by the road and I by the paddock, J.lorns: The parcel of accounts wai not opened in my presence. I endeavorec to broach the matter, but you turned the conversation. I never gave Payton i Co, any authority to print; we had noth ing to ijo with giving ordprs to eithei paper. The Court! Am Ito understand tha the committee had nothing to do villi tin printing. J. lorns: They had nothing to do witl it, In Answer to Mr Renall: You said joi would give us help, but you would no recognise any liabilities. The Court: Did you understand tha from (he beginning) J. Jurns: No j but I believe lie triei to impresß it upon us 'pn one oj; two oc cantons. I believe when pressed foi money he promised to assist us, but saic ho had no control over us. In answer to the Court: Mr Renal admitted that printing was a legal ex pense. Mr Bunny . When Air Renall talked t< you in that way it was with R view ti restrain you from incurring illegal ex ponses, was it not? J. lorns: Something to that effect, M Renall paid money to assist the Commit tee. Mr J. J. Smith was a member o the General Committee. During the election we had printed copies of circular ifid speeches tor distribution. A Com nijttee meeting was adjouriied fq pnablt me to interview Mr Renall re" printing I did not, however, see bim, Mr Bunny: Are your grounds for say ing this because there is no entry of a re port in the minute book ? J. lorns: Partly so and partly frou memory. I think Mr Renall when hi paid me cheques was aware that ho waf !sy' n £! in the capacity of secretary, ! was annoyed when S|r Renall reftpd ti ?o into the account's. Mr Bunny:' Do you remember thi ijqlioe ponvpnijig a Committee meeting t lettlp up appoonts, and did ypu hav'p any ihing to do with it ? . ■ N :

J. lofjja; I thipknot, . - / Mr Bunny: You art as clear about this as you are about the othor advertisement 1 J-lorns: Yes; lam clear about it. . Mr Bunny : Will youlook at this paper, ; is this in Mr J, J. Sm'ith'a"handwriting.' i J. lorns: Ido not know. Mr Bunny: In-whose handwriting is t!)e alteration; is it your own.. ?• Ipra ß .! No.' (Alter a nation.) I beliove the alteration is in my handwriting, ' ' ' Mr Bunny: You have made a mistake then in saying you had nothing to do with sailing tho last meeting. J. jorns; J havp no reqnjlection of it. I acin't admit" making s ijjiotakg."T Mr Bunny j If I ;can showJthat yo'u wore consulted in the mat{er you will admit making a mistake,,. I; : „') ,i.V' J. lorna: Yes. Mr Bunny: Your, memory isjnotiyet clear about these matters. J.lorns: oyesitis. iv : : The Court: Did Mr Ronall oyer say that he left his affairs in the hands of his

oonumtteo, .. J. lorns i No ; lie said be woulfl.liave no'control oyer oijr movements, biit that he would assist ut?. '' r -' ! J. J. Smith re-palled; provpd that he sent tl)o notice convening the committee meeting tosettlo up to Jfr Jprps, who inserted in it the day on whioh the committee were to meet, and returned it to him. He nlsjj stated, that Messrs Sniith and Hog? oharged all their election advertisements against Mr Renal!, Thoir own account had neither been paid nor recognised, It had not been returned to them either by Mr Renall or by his committoe, Mr J|ui)ny J Tljat is the case for tho plaintiffs, ■ Mr Renall before ealliug witnesses for the defence submitted two points, Mr Bunny, ho said, had utterly failed to show any agency between himself and the Committee, The ovidence showed that the Committee was a voluntary body, and if there was any agency it must be in writing, What was the liability of a candidate if lie had a body forty or fifty strong which was abje to make jijm responsible.'! The Court: lara'afraid' that I cannot go with you as to the agency being neccessarily in writing, Mr Renall would take the next point-. The Statute pf fraqdq ajiyg tjiat wJjeq'A. incurs liability on account of B. there must be a written authority, The Court: That is when yon seek io make A liable, Mr Renall asked what his position was if the Statute of frauds did not protecthim. He had never recognised any account. He simply advanced money and'never dictated how it should be spent, >• Mr Bunny asked permission to address this'Oomi : The Court doubted whether it could deviate from, the, ordinary procedure, ; ;Tht

only ground on which it would be disposed to give permission was the fact that the evidence had been voluminous and owing to the adjournment it wight be desirable to refresh its memory, Mr Eenall submitted that he had no case to meet. There never was any direct agcnoy, and if it did exist it was not in writing, The words" This will do" endorsed on the address woro for Smith & Hogg only, • The Court held that-Mr*Eenall had a case to meet as the evidence of Mr Bish and Mr E; V. Smith proved that he told them that he placed'hirfliSlf in the hands of his committee. The Court adjourned ar hour J. J. Smith recalled by the the address after it was endorsed oame back he believed through a member of the committee, Mr Eenall: I wrote the words " This will do" in the Star office I believo. Tho Court: Since the adjournment I have carefully gone over the evidence and considered it in all the hearings and feel that I hare, reason to doubt the conclusion I arrived' 'at that the..defendant had a case to meet. lam not at all clear that I should decide that point now as I did before the adjournment,. . Mr Bunny asked after' this intimation to address the Court.' The Court: I had, rather you had made the application before I intimated a ohangein my view. .; ' ,Mr Bunny: I apprehend that you consider that we have not My established the agency, ' '/ The Court.: I hold that theie was no authority given by,'the committee to Smith k Hogg.; Mr iJuhny submitted ,that there wag ample evidence.to-prove Vthat a general body was constituted tojsecure the return of Mr Eenall and that it'had full power to incur expenses|fotthat"object. At an early part of the.campaign the question of publishing an address was mooted and a sub-coipniittee'was appointed to Bee him, J."J. Smitli deposed that he was a member of the general committee and that he believed that he received, orders from Mr lorns. Mr Eenall.'by//endorsing th> address which item In the The Court: The!weals , "point in your case Mr Bunny is the!abaenc9 of instruc* tions given by the committee to Smith & Hogg. ' Mr Bunny submitted that the account rendered by the plaintiffs had been accepted by the committee and forwarded by it lor payment to Mr Eenall If the committee had not recognised it thg account would have beep returned. Th» account had never been disputed but had been included in the statement presented by Mr lorns. The refusal of Mr Eenall was not to settle one account but all accounts, Messrs Smith and Hogg would never haro placed themsolves in the position they had done if there was no agency, Mr Eenall took in the papers and dearly cognizant of the fapt of the append ance of the advertisements. E. Y, Smith re-called by the Court | Baid he had peyer before seen the manuscript of the address produced. Hp h«d never given any instructions to Smith $ Hogg re advertising. He was only chairman of the committee for oneeveniw;. The Court said it had listened easily to Mr Bunny's address. Mr Bunny W made the most of every point which it was possible to make, but he had failed to convince him of the liability of the dofendant to the plaintiffs. To do that it whb necessary to establish the mwy of Messrs Smith and H»gg derived from Mr Eenall or from a duly authorised Comi mittei!. The only evidence in support of agency is Hint of Messrs Smith and Hogg. Those witnesses had given evidence in g manner which redounded lo their credit. They had a full knowledge of tho consequences of so deing, but had made no attempt to fix the liability on Mr Renall by any coloring of facts. There was no shadow of doubt that they authorised the advertisements. From the evidence it could form no other opinion except that the authority from the Committee was not established. Withrespecttothegenoralauthority to the Committee, that miuhtbe all Bish and Smith hjid stated, the authority was giyen to the Committee ap<j not to any indivicTual member 1 of jt,' Jq fix this liability on Mr Eenall Borne general authority must be shewn. The chairman said he gave none, and the seo- , retary said the same, It is not impro--! bable that the authority came from some enthusiastic members of the committee, who went into the Star office and gave orders, but the plaintiffs have failed to bring that authority hp'ipe ty tjip commit', tee as a body. He'coiild pof support m view that an individual'member of|hp committee could nse his position Bn it for his owiv' priyatp bnsines.s purposes by giving a man in the same business as himself a good order on the ground that he received another good order in return. There was an .entiro failure to shew any authority'from the committee to Messrs Smith and Hogg to cause these advertisements to appear in the Daiiy, and th* plaintiffs must be non-suittd. , Mr Btinnjr; ,-Doe.s this apply to the last advertising,'J ;'5 ; i (yj The Court'; Yes, it was copied from th» Star. The effect of; (jiis case, may< be to let election committees know that there it a limit beyond which they cannot involve a candidate. The costs of Court amounted tp 80j, 10s w'rire added .forixpensesjof i'one wit'nesß—Mr B. V' Smith.- '• *' ' Mr Epnall at thie stage began to allqdf to the violent and unmanly abuse with which tho Daily had attacked him during the contest, •• The Court: quiet. I. quiet I!, Mr Eenall 'obntinued in an excited tons, The Court; I shall be sorry to have to put you -in" -ftharge of the bailiff Mr Eenall but the case is complete and I can hejtr'nohiorp from yoij. jfr Eenall: Thank jrou sir | I). F, McCarthy v James Elhotte.— Debt |3l " Mr Ecafd' for plajptiff, My Bunny fpr defendant.; This oastf ocodjiied tho Court all last'evening, and tue whole of this morning, ■, The factß were as follows.—ll, G. Williams owed plaintiff a private debt and in satisfaction thereof gave him a receipt for certain saddles and harness, the property of. the firm of Williams aiid Elliotte, on' the understanding that plaintiff did not claim the, goods till' five days had expired, or was Jevied upon them h'o!j>'iwihpr: quarter. Tliis'arrangemenj; wa„ made M ii Saturday, and on the .following Monday the plaintiff waited upou Mr Williams and demanded the goods'. Mr .Williams'fe. fiißed to admit, the claim, find a lo'nij and acrimoneouß discussion took place between the two ir the parlour at the back of Williams and Elliotte's-shop.: At its conclusion the plaintiff came into shop pd, placing his hand on soma' saddlery said "this is mine," Mr Vfil; lianp sprang at iiim'seiibd him'tyy thq neck and threatned to strike him, and there was a general row. After' this '.Mr Williams filed Ins schedule, amHlig plaintiff sued Mr Elliqtte, his partner fot the goods which Mr Williams had plqdKPf} to him. The defence was that Mr Elliotts was no party to tho private transaotioQ between tho plaintiff and ;Mr Williams, and that the latter had no right to pledg® the property of the firm to satisfy a privata debt. ' ~ s •• i ' ;,