RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume IV, Issue 715, 24 September 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

jTeibat, September 23. (Before J. Giles, Esq., E. M.) CIVIL CASES. Cook v Leslie.—Claim for £5 16s Gd; and same v Reeves, claim for £3 10s. In both cases the plaintiff accepted a non-suit, not bein<* in a position to prove as widow of the deceased, with whom the liability of the defeudant had been contracted, that she could claim as executrix. John Harris v William Lambert and Robert Lambert.—Claim for £ls for two tons of flour, at £7 10s per ton. Mr Pitt, who appeared on behalf of William Lambert, denied any liability. Robert Lambert admitted the claim. The plaintiff stated that as Robert Lambert had admitted his liability, he should call him as a witness. He desired his Worship to order all witnesses out of Court. His Worship suggested that if he desired to call Robert Lambert, it might be done at once. Robert Lambert: I am not owner, nor part owner, of the schooner Woodquest. I ordered the vessel to be towed in on behalf of my brother. Sho belongs to my brother, and he bought her of a man named Fowler" I believe, though I cannot say unless 1 see the registry. My brother paid for the boat. I lent him £7O and took a bill for the money. The bill is now in the bank of New Zealand for collection, and will be due shortly. I

do not hold tho snip's papers as security. The vessel cost over £IOO. My brother and my sell' are not partners. I did not get orders for freight, but I solicited the interest of many 1 knew for my brother. I advised my brother not to accept Borne freights, as the vessel was leaky, and suggested that he should give tho freight to another vessel.—A number of questions were put to tho witness, which the Court instructed him not to answer. His Worship stated that the plaintiff had himself called the witness, and he had no right to treat him as hostile when there appeared every willingness to reply to questions. By Mr Pitt: 1 have offered to pay the plaintiff a portion ot the account, or a bill at a mouth for tho whole, He refused that, and I then offered him a six weeks' bill endorsed by my brother. Harris accepted these terms, but subsequently refused, unless the ship's papers were lodged as security. Bythe plaintiff: Ineversawtheletter produced before. I gave instructions to Mr Pitt to try and settle the matter. I have not got any papers prepared for the purpose of filing my schedule. I have seen Mr Pitt.

His Warship interrupted thewitness, stating that the plaintiff was putting questions that need not be answered.

John Harris : Bobert Lambert and William Lambert came to my place. I told Bobert Lambert I had some flour which he might be able to do something with. I charged him £8 a ton. The flour was damaged, but passable. It had been rebagged from 2001b to 501b bags. He and his brother looked at it, and brought a third party and took it away. Wm. Lambert said he did not care if they only made freight upon it. Good flour is worth £lB to £2O. The flour was bought or. condition that I p "id cartage. I said that I should require cash, and Bobert said " the money is all right." Bobert and 1 went into a parlor and he gave me an order on Dwan, of Charleston, for the money. During the whole of this time Bobert represented himself as the ostensible owner of the vessel. He brought a cargo of coal from Charleston in her last trip, which he sold. I forwarded the order and it was dishonored, the vessel not having arriver'. I subsequently presented it, and the money was not forthcoming. I saw Bobert about the order, and he said it would be right, that the flour was not sold, and that things were not going quite straight, but would be rectified. He repeated that he and his brother were partners, William being present at the time, and he '.lid not deny it. Bobert said he was leaving the police in consequence of a reduction in the pay, and that his brother and he would work the vessel. William Lambert has been twice to my house to induce me to takeabill, threatening that, if I pushed, recourse would be had to the Bankruptcy Court. I offered to give time if 1 got the ship's papers, and William said that he would sink the vessel rather than I should hold the papers. I received a letter, which I produce, from their solicitors in which insolvency is threatened unless I agree to their terras.

Catharine Harris: I am wife of the plaintiff. I have seen the defendant William Lambert, but have had no special conversation with him. I have had frequent conversations with his brother Robert. The latter told me he was in partnership with his brother and said that he had left the force in consequence of a reduction of 2s Gd per day. I do not recollect William Lambert being pri sent during any conversation. Robert said that he had saved £IGO while in the service of the Government. This closed the evidence for the plaintiff, and for the defence William Lambert, sworn, said : I am owner of the Woodquest. I do not recollect my brother buying flour. I took some on board according to my brother's instructions. I never purchased any flour from Harris. By the plaintiff: I otfered to be surety for my brother for the money he owed you. I do not recollect your saying that my guarantee was useless as we both owed the money. My brother did not buy the vessel nor pay for it. I borrowed £7O from him. I have not got the receipt for the payment of the vessel. The receipt is in Nelson. 1 cannot say what I spent the £7O in. It was partly for the vessel and partly for other matters. I cannot say how much I spent upon the vessel, not even to £2O. I bought some rope ; it might have been 2001 bs or 2501b5, or less. I have no idea what the weight was, but the price was 8d per pound. There was also outlay for ironwork and carpenters' labor, but I don't know the amount. By the Bench: I was not present when the flour was purchased or before it was purchased. I only went with a draymen to take delivery. I do not recollect the circumstance of there being only 90 bags, and that we had but room for 80 bags in the vessel. The plaintiff then addressed the Court, stating the particular disadvantages under which he labored. The two Lamberts had been in the police force, and as must be evident to his Worship, displayed considerable ingenuity under examination. Thev were, without doubt, expert witnesses, and with any defect supplied by counsel, he believed they would bo quite able to pull through anything. It was very clear, he thought, that a partnership existed between the brothers, and he trusted in the event of his obtaining a verdict that his Worship would see fit to graut immediate execution. The threat that had beon

sent by letter, in which immediate recourse to insolvency was to be had unless the defendant's terms were agreed to, justified the application. His AVorship said that the case was a very difficult oue to decide. He could uot conclude that a collusive and covert partnership existed between the two brothers, unless the evidence was very direct and positive. To believe that there was a partnership,he msst also believe that there was very gross and glaring fraud. It could not be denied that there was sufficient to have led to an impression on the part of the plaintiff" that there was a partnership ; at the same time the actions of two men who were brothers must not be interpreted so strictly as if they were strangers. The one might interest himself for the other in the way of soliciting cargo, or giving advice, without being a partner. The verdict would be for the defendant with costs.

The application of John Harris for immediate execution against Kobert Lambert was refused. At the rising of the Warden's Court Harris again applied for immediate execution, but the Court was declared adjourned. Applicant said that he was positive that the defendant intended to file a declaration of insolvency.