RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume IV, Issue 632, 15 March 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Saturday, March 12. (Before J. Giles, Esq., TC.M.) CITIL CASE. PRINCIPAL V. AGENT. The Magistrate gave judgment in the case of Dewdney v. 'Dunn. The action, he said, was one for money alleged to have been had and received by the defendant for the use of the plaintiff. The question which arose was whether the defendant was liable or not. It was clear from the cases which had been referred to in the course of the case, as well as from the ordinary principles of law, that a person receiving money, as the defendant received it, for the purpose of paying it over to another party, did not thereby reuder himself liable to the party to whom the money was to be paid; he was only liable to the person who entrusted him with the money. Tho only privity that there was was between tho principal and his and not between tho agent and a third party. But it appeared, from a case referred to by Mr Pitt, that an acknowledgment on tho part of a person receiving the money was held to constitute a privity between him and the person to whom it was to be paid. The presumption was that if ho had allowed it to be stated that money had been entrusted to him for a particular purpose, he might be sued for it, and that, it was alleged, had taken place in this instance. .Now, so far as an acknowledgment of that kind went, there were two points to be considered — first, as to privity, and second as to the money having been received at all by the defendant. He thought that the principle of acknowledgment as to liability must be interpreted very strictly. It must bo very definite and explicit. If that wore the case, the law inferred some consideration. It inferred that the plaintiff must not seek his money anywhere else; but in that case it must be very distinct. It would not be enough to say in a general way " I am left with power to settle your account," but it must be distinctly " I have received money which I am prepared to pay over to you." Where any discretionary power was left to the agent, he might use that power. He had to inquire if the account was really clue, and in this case it appeared from tho evidence of the defendant that the party who went away, Morrison, never deposited £7 2s to be paid to Dewdney, but gave him £lO to settle accounts generally, the defen(the Magistrate) thought therefore that there was no distinct acknowledgment to Dewdney on the part of the defendant, and nothing short of that could constitute privity. Tho other point was this—ln any action of this kind it must be proved that the money was had and received. A mere acknowledgment might be made under a mistake. An agent might receive a cheque worth nothing, which he might have to repudiate afterwards. Here the main fact—that the defendant had received £7 2s for Dewdney—was flatly contradicted. In the exercise of his discretion, the defendant had not paid this account, and he said on oath that he had reason to believe that the account was not correct. That was a matter entirely between the principal and Dewdney. He could not recover from an agent. Another circumstance was that the plaintiff had sued somebody also for the same account—one of tho mates of the principal. Looking at all the points, there was no case against the defendant. A previous hearing of the case had resulted in a non-suit, and he must now enter a verdict for the defendant.