DISTRICT COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 4, Issue 1061, 29 April 1882, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

FEIDAY, *v Botokh Rig Honor Judqr Eardoastie, DONAiU DoNAIDV, E. MEREDITH, JUN. Debt, £l3B la Gd. {Continued.) Mr Chapman for the defence applied for a nonsuit on tho ground that there was no guarantee from defendant; plaintiffdid ■■ the work for Lett & Co, Not being satisfied with the security of the Company he looked to Meredith as a guarantor. Even if defendant wore guarantor, ftp taking of the' bill from Ifett discharged , the liability, At the timo the eontraot was made ho supposed ho was working for defendant, but afterwards was made aware that ho was working for Lett, and quoted authority on contracts to bliow that defendant was not liable, Mr firay submitted this was not an action under the Statute of Frauds. Mr Donald did not acknowledge defendant as uuythiug but a principal in the matter, Alter considerable argument Hia Ejpn'< s decided that there a ca.Bo, to go 'jo j|w jury, and Ifr Chapqian pncned (|ip page for the defendant.. E. Merpdilli.juq., defendant, deposed he was a fannor'at Whareama, Ketnemberodconvorsation wiih Donald at AYaiorongo with referent to threshing wheat, Witness asked plaintiff what he would charge for threshing wheat. He said 5d per bushel, to which defendant agreed, provided plaintiff agreed to terms for shipping tho g'ain. No otlcr matters were arranged at this time. Nothing wag said as to Lett's grain, except thas. plain-! tiff was going to chargp them, the same' price, fjajnfiff i|id- not make any allusion as tq defendant paying for Lett's grain, Saw Lott the first day his threshing was commenced and he.'sajd.ho had arranged with Donald to pay him, in grain "for threshing, and as defendant had a lien on the crops Lett askod defendant's sanction to this. Defendant declined to agree to this. Lett asked defendant to give his refusal in writing, which be did. When the threshing was completed Lett brought a memo as to amount of grain thresho! which was delivored to plajujif g storeman at Uriti. Had no other conversation whatever. Qbjeoted to Lott paying Donak] in gvain bcoausß he did not seo his way clear to being ro-iinbursed, Donald never sent an account to witness of (pin threshed. Plaintiff knew defendant had a lien on Lett's grain. Had no recollection of any other conversation with plaintiff. Plaintiff rendered account for threshing defendant's grain, This was after Lett's grain had heen threshed. By Mr Gray ; Donald did, not agree with defendant to thresh Lett's grain. He denied this absolutely. Defendant would not allow any grain to be removed. Lott made an error when he said witness agreed to allow plaintiff to take grain from a certain stack to save carting, Johnston and Co. had nothing whatever to do with the matter. Did not recollect telling either L.ett or .Donald that Johnston & Co. would not allow any grain to.. ► betaken. Had partnership dealings with L, Lett. Did not make arrangements' for threshing Lett's grain.. Subsequently had conversation with Donald, who asked witness if he could not. do something to facilitate, the payment of, his account, to which witueßß replied' be could not. Plaintift never made any direct applioa- ' -■■ tion for payment. Plaintiff'had told witness that he had been advised by his solicitor that he had a good case. ■ After counsel had addressed the Court and His Honor summed up the evidence, pointing out the most important and contradictory parts of it, the jury retired to''" consider their verdict. ."; ' After a short time the jury roturned a verdict for plaintiff with costs. -