DISTRICT COURT, HAMILTON. IN BANKRUPTCY. [Before His Ho or J. E. Macdonald, Judge.] Tuesday, March 16th, 1880.

Waikato Times, Volume XIV, Issue 1205, 18 March 1880, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT, HAMILTON. IN BANKRUPTCY. [Before His Ho or J. E. Macdonald, Judge.] Tuesday, March 16th, 1880.

BE LUKE WILSOX. Me W. Macqreoor Hay appeared for the discharge of the bankrupt, and put in the report of the trustees. Bankrupt havinjr been sworn and stated that he had sriven up all his property and there beiny no opposition, the discharge was granted. BE GEORGE LOVEGROVE. Mr O'Neill appeared for the discharge of the bankrupt. There was no opposition and bankrupt was discharged. EB E. -WILSON. Mr O'Neill appeared for bankrupt, and applied for his discharge. No opposition ; discharge granted. Buckland v. Coombes — claim, £22 os, on dishonored promissory note. Mr O'Neill stated that he had been engaged for defendant at a late hour, and applied for an adjournment. Robert Bradley, sworn, stated he was Mr J. S. Bucklaud's manager, and deposed to the debt. Judgment for plaintiff for full amount and costs, £4 Bs. Dalton v. G. B. Beere— claim, £27 12s 6d. Mr Hay appeared for plaintiff. True Dalton deposed : I am a miller residing on the Ohaupo road. Defendant is indebted tome for the amount claimed. Judgment in full for plamtiff, with costs £1 os. Thomspon v. Lamb claim, £29 6s lOd. Mr O Neill appeared for plaintiff. Mr Hay, for the defence, pleaded a set-off. John Thompson, a bush contractor re^idmar at Karakariki, stated : I am plaintiff. I delivered certain rafts of lo<?» to defendant in November, March, and August last, amounting- in value to £59 6s 10d, and receive-i £30 on account. I received no other payment. Cro-<s-examin«d : I got these rafts in K3rakaiiki I cross-cut and jacked them out. My father was in 1878 engaged in this brsinesB. He died on the 23rd September, 1878. There were no loirs then in the bush, and no timber cut. Piior to September 23rd I had no interest in the timber business. I got the timbpr out of the bush. I was a'-ting for myself, not for my mother. She had no iv ! crest in thtse logs. There was a man called Le Sceur employed is the business. He kept the accounts and signed the salenotes, The invoices produced were written by Lo Sceur and sent with the timber. The timber was delivered personally to deendant. I remember one particular raft sent by steamer. I did not deliver that personally to defendant. I went to defendant's office two or three days after my father's death. 1 don't recollect what. I went about. I got my goods from Davies store at Nsraruuwahia while I was cutting the timber. I got I none fiom Lamb. I received noue of the goods mertioned in the set-off. There were bu>hmeu boarding with my mothor. I paid my mother for tho board of these

men and myself. I paid her with cattle. They hod belonged to my father, and at hia death became my property. I took out no letters of administration. My father left no debts. I never paid a debt of ray father's to Mr Gilmour or any other debts. In November, 1879, I saw Mr Rickett , defendants clerk. I believe got an account from him at Mr Lamb's office. Mr Ricketts read it over. I saw the account in the ledger. It was headed " Mrs Thompson." I can t recollect whether the timber now rued for was included in the account*. I am not sore that I objected to it at the time. To Mr O'Neill : In the account produced defendant credits me with three raft* of timber. It was on acoount of the^e rafts defendant gave mo three ch^qnef . lam now suing for the balance due on them. I paid my mother with cattle for my board. My mother got the furniture and life insuranoe. The bush in which the timber was cut had been leased to my father. Le Scaur used to write letters for my mother as well as for myself. Le Soeur had no authority to say the logs were sent by Thompson on account of the late C. Thompson. Robert Lamb, miller, *»t Ngaruawhia, depo-ed : 1 never bought any timber from plaintiff. I had dealings with his father, Charles Thompson. I saw John two or three days after his fathers death. He came to my office. I asked him what he intended to do now his father wan dead. He replied, " Carry on the old way.'' I understood thai, he intended to take up hi.s father's position, and I said that will he all right. At the time of the elder Thompsons death he owed me about £25. Goods had been supplied sometimes to Ulurles Thompson's order, some times to Le eour's order. Some goods were ordered afterwards by John Thompson per«,onally and by Mrs Thompson. To the Court : I supplied the goods to Mrs Thomprion. To Mr Hay : All the items in the set off were supplied to Mrs Thompson. (Defendant's ledgrer produced showed the account made out in the name of Charles Thorn pson, and subsequently in the name of Mrs Thompson.) The timber, the subject of this action, is credited to Mrs Thompson in my books To the Court : Plaintiff never told me I was dealing with him personally for the timber To Mr May : My clerk had no authority to m ike an account out to John Thompson from an account in mv ledger entered to Margaret Thompson. Had I been present I should have prevented it. (Letters produced, signed by John Le Soeur from Mrs Thompson referring to timber sent ) The letters produced I received with the timber Kued for. John Thompson never claimed payment until some th cc months ago through his solicitor. To Mr O'Neill: I have supplied goods to MrR Thompson by order of Le Sceur. I handed Jol»n Thompson three cheques in part paymeut of the timber. I Kent invoices of the goods as they were shipped to Mrs Thompson. I never charged them to J >hn Thompson. I don't charge them so now. To* Uourr : That settles the question of the set-off as against John Thompson. The defendant has chosen under which thimble he will find the pca — namely Mrs i Thompson This concluded the defendant's case 1 . Mr O'Neill claimed that plaintiff was entitled to a verdict. He had proved delivery of the timber, and the act-off had fallen to the ground. The Court this was an attempt to impose ou defendant bj getting credit for timber which defendant believed he waa purchasing from Mrs Thompson. Defendant was justified in believing he was dealing with the widow. It appeared to the Court that it would have been better not to have pleaded the set-off, but the defendant might have boldly taken the bull by the horns, and denied at once any dealings with other than the widow. A judgment could not be given for the i-ldintiff. Mr O'Neill concluded to take a non •mit. Mr Hay said the plea of defence had b°eu put in under counsel's advice, and >bj«ctod to plaintiff's demands for costs through 'he act-off having been a failure. Hie Court said that if Mr O'Neill could prove any costs occasioned through the tfit-off he could claim them, but not otherwise. The Court awarded £11 3s 6d OOstS.