ERSIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Friday, September, 10th, 1875.

Waikato Times, Volume IX, Issue 517, 11 September 1875, Page 2

ERSIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Friday, September, 10th, 1875.

(Beforo W. N. Searancke, Eaq , R. M., and S. Seddon, Esq., J.JP.J LbQctesve r. R. MoBTOx.-Clam £5 18s, debt. Defendant did not appear. Constable Haddock proved the service of thesummoni upon the defendant at Hamilton, on Wednesday, September Ist. The plaintiff swore to the correctness of the account. Ha deposed that plaintiff asked credit until July 2G, as his son# were in the mihtia and would pay the money on that data. On the 28th July plaintiff applied for payment, and defendant attid hi< tons had forgotten all about the matter and banked their money. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs, 13s. J. 8. Bernaed v. Jag Kbllet —Claim £2 for rent There was no »ppearance of defendant. Plaintiff deposed that he is a sergeant hi the Armed Constabulary and Immigration Sub-Agent for the Waikato District. (Authority as such agent produced.) The claim was for rent of a two-roomed cottage iv West Hamilton, belonging to the Government, let to the defendant. On July 2nd, witness gave notice to defendant of the ront to be charged. Defendant hadeince left the cottage, lie had been in constant employ-

raent since hu arrival as a carpenter. Beloved he had three children. (Hi* Worship x Only three ? ) Judgment Jfor pUntiff far full amount and costs, 9j and half witn««» f i expenses. 6«. iSAMg v. Wk £dwakds Claim £1 rent imawM* similar ewe. The debt bad beea frequently demanded. PUintiff was not aware whether op n o nt t defe ,dant vrli still in occupation. SjLXT^ piyausnt of defond«f- wife. Mr Madden if ho had a vrritton authority to anpear for the Company. He co^nd^thai x written authority from the Company was neccssarym order to enable bis learned friend to appear. The learned counsel quote! from Fisher • Hiru.on's Digest, col. 230 oa Corporations, on th» subject of authorities for attorneys to appear on behalf of Compauiee. It was laid down that "authorities forai attorney to appear for a company must be unler the seal of fie Company." The learned conns >1 also quoted from 001. 19r 2 where it was »tated M A corporation cannot make authority for the appointm.-nt of an attorney to conduct suits or manage the affairs of a corporation ercepi under its hand and seal, and such attorney, excopt by app <intment under the common seal, cannot recover for busineis done." Ha aho quoted from re!. 2,918 of the same autaorit-y to the following efltot. "No common corporation except that of London can appoint an attorney except under the cor porat* seal." In iha present ca»a the Company had not given the necessary authority antf the Company was virtually not ia Court at all. Mr Wbitaker »aid that though the question was new to this Court, it had arisen frequently at the Thames, and it had bean definitely decided in cases of recovery of c*lls. It was first raised by Messrs Rees and Taylor, and it was eonclusi»ely laid down that a Company could only appoint an attorney under its common seal. Mr Madden said he was much astonished at one of the leirned gentlemen taking such an objection, whick if fatal could only result in co3ta being charged to the defendant. He was astonish-d because Mr Whitaker had virtually adsaitted his risht to appear by asking him t) waive certain, technical objections, and he (Mr Madden) had promised to do co. Mr Whitaker denied the statement. He only aaked th*f. the aivertisement should be admitted. His Warship said Mr Whitaker had better allow Mr Madden to proceed as he would h^Te an opportunity of replying afterwards. Mr Whi'aker said it wa3 a personal matter, and his name haJ been mentioned. Mr Madden, continued : This was a Oanrt of equity as well as of law, Me could put Mr Hunt in the box to prove that he wa« the aa&jrised agent of the Company, and had anthorised him (Mr Madden) to appear. Toe ReaidtutMafistrate's, Court Act stated "that it was KwfuLfor a party to appear p»n>onally or by barrister." It was well known thit Mr Hunt was tho local manager of the Company. He wai advertised as such. Tke instructions of tho Company were to abandon technicalities, but if the other side rontinu3d their objection he (Mr Madden) would consider it Jiis duty to raise every objection ie his power. Mr Hay siid lie did not see how the^clause of the R. M. Cou ti Act quote 1, cottTd apply to this easa, as it nf erred to the admission or ruction of evidence, and not as to the point he hid raised, which went to the ba«is of the action. Mr Madden said hi hid only been asked to appear in the case on Tuesday la«t, and had not had time to procure authority under se»l. Mr Hay : Thit hi 9 nothing to do wilh us. Hia Worship said he was always nnxiojs to carry out the eq-iity view of cues, but io this rass thj law wis clear. Tin learned counsel could not appear without th^ written aut'iority under The ease iro.ild have to be adjourned. Mr Madden said wh~n tho capo came to trial he would take every possible objection. Mr H»y : This is not a technical point. Mr Madden : Then I don't know what else it is. Adjourned until thp 20lhinst., with costs against defendant, £6 l/>s 6 1. Hr/NT and Chitty p. E A. Pottkk.— Claim, £8 15s for balance of account. Mr M«ddf>n for plaintiff, Mr Hay for defendent. Mr Madden asked that all wineries be ordered out of court, whic'i wis done accordingly. Walter Chitty remembered selling Mr Potter talf atm of hay iv June. On July 13th sold him 9 head of cattle for £76. Had sold him one beast previously. 7 head for £60, and one for £8 10s were the property of witn-ss, and the balao?e was M> Hunt's property. Had acted as agent for Mr Hunt Dffendant knpw the distinction between Pother's and his father's account. At Mr Potter's request the accounts were put into one. Had given credit for £87. £8 15s was still due to witness and Mr Hunt. There mt'ght be a small meat account iue to Mr Potter, but he hid refused to render an account of it. Defendant was to take delivery on the farm. Defendant hid refused to pay for a beast whirli was lost on tke road, and said it was not his fault that it wa» W. The son said he would prefer to see the cattle paid for, a* he be'iaved it would farn up. Croß3-examm«d by Mr Hay : Had demanded payment of the father beea me be signed the cheques though the business wis said to be'o nc to the son. The father appeared to do the clerkng work. The eh qic for £2) on Auga*t 14h wns a payment, on aeco'inf. Did rmt know whether Mr Hunt given receipt in full. (Mr Madden sul mitted thit the dieu ncnt must be produced.) Hid njt ren lered the account its from Hunt and Chitty Had given cwrdii fir £16 16« for two beasts which were bovght but not removed. Mr Potter too,k the small eat 1 le and left the larger one* behind. Kaew nothing a settlement on August 14'h. Mr Hunt was 6t powered to ■settle the whole account. Wis not in partnership with Mr Hunt Mr Hay :It seems to be a curious tiling vonr Wbrahipthattwo parties «an appear and sue j >intly in this way. Re-examined by Mr Madden : Would prefer that defendant should take the beast and pay for it. (The learned eoumel was proceeding to ask a question with regard to certain liay, when Mr i Hay objected as the hay did not arise out of his crosp-examination Mr Mndden -. Mr Hay was the firat to raise the question of hay.) M*thew De Veere Hunt deposed that he ha 1 authorised Mr Cbitty to sell cattle ani ho"ses to defendant. (Document produced) could notreaithed^enment in a lioq9p, owing tj bid sight. Two cows purchased by defendant had s' rayed back, and were in. witn'Si's paddock. C oss-ex»mined by Mr Hay: (cheque for £20 produced ) Ths counterfoil of cheque stated " Balance of cattle d^li^erad, and account to July, 1 ' and vraa initialed by|Mr Hunt. Had signed the cheque without seeing what wns on the blo.k. Mr Potter fisted him to put his name on tho block, as an acknowledgment and he did so without eeeingwhat was on it. Chitty was not a partner, but bis agent. Re *x inained by Mr Madden. As I hope to see my Maker 1 received the cheque on account, and not as a payment in full. I had confidence in the man, and thought the chequo was ri2ut. He said after paying the cheque tha' if I wanted any more money I could have it on Saturday. He never opened hi» lips that the cheque was for anything else thin a payment of £20. Had he told me it was a payment in full I would not have received it. By the Court: Hal not confuse 1 this -with money borrowed from Mr Potter. Had borrowed mon*y before from Mr Potter. In Jun« when the bay was sold there w»s a trifle due to Mr Potter for small loans and meat. Henry Hunt, son of last witness, proved the removal of two strawberry cows to defendant's atock-yard, Mr I otter aiding in driving them. Mr H ly'contended th<*t plaintiff* must be non-suited ai they hadaned jointly without a partnership, and moreover there was not a sufficiently expHcit statement of aeoounta as required by the 25th clause of the R.M. Courts Act. Mr Madden quoted Smith's Mercantile Inw, Bu'len and Leek, and Chittv on Contracts to shew that the present Chitty (who by the way may be a lineal descendant of the legal luminaiv quoted) and Hunt had a riMit to sue jointly. His Worship said the Court had a doubt on its mind from the opening of thacase as to whether two principals could bo joined in an action, and the Court was of npinim that the plaintiffs in the present ea*e could not bo joined. l It would therefore be optional to the learned counsel for the plaintiffs to take a uon-suifc. Mr

Madden : Then to which side Trill the monies •paH be mil- ty> M-idden d> clined to t^ "ft -nonllbuib. The Bench garo judgment for 'dtoftindant' •vith costs 6 is. '

National Bank v. H. Thomas. —Claim £20 -on a dial o mured cheque. In this cane the , defendant had become eecarrty for a third party ai lined Bentley, who gave a bill to ihe Bank, defendantgiving his postdated cheque 88 collateral seourity. The iC leque was dishonoured. Defendant nivv appeared and confessed judgment for the amount on eoudition that £5 be paid immediately, and £3 per mouth u til the whole amount was satisfied.

Pottee v. Cox akd Mason — In thi* case judgment bad been confessed for £4 12* 2d. Mr Hay for plain-Liff now ftpplied tli*t immediate execution be^%tod. Mr Madden opposed the' tg anting of jpeady execution. If bis clients had * notice of the present application they would have tb the Oourt and aworn that they were not the district. They were doing a good business, having more applicants than they were abe to accommodate, and he beliered they weald p»y tne money at once. His Worship »nii tha Court would not grant immediate execution, but ♦wjuld order the money to be paid by 11 e'cloclc on Satusdjiy, (to-day). This concluded the business and the Cowr rose