R.M. COURT, HAMILTON.

Waikato Times, Volume XX, Issue 1695, 17 May 1883, Page 2

R.M. COURT, HAMILTON.

j YestbrdAY.— [Before Mr Northcroft, R.M.] McPherson v. Ratirna te Whakacte. — Claim, £14 2s, for rates. There was no appearance of the defendant. Mr W. M. Hay, as ainicus curice, reminded the bench that under the new act local bodies must sue in their own name. Mr O'Neill thought this did not apply to rates due and recoverable before the coming into operation of the new act. Mr Northcroft read the section of the act which coincided with Mr O'Neill's view. Judgment for amount and costs. Scott and Cox v. Jamieson. — Claim 10s. Judgment for amount aud costs. Messrs Beauchamp Bros. Book Debts. W. J. Hunter v. W. Cumming. — Claim, £9 0s lOd. Mr Hay for the plaintiff, and Mr O'Neill for defendant. Mr Hay asked Mr O'Neill for his anthoiity. Mr O'Neill, without admitting Mr Hay's right to question his authority, said he was instructed by defendant to appear. Mr Northcroft : That is sufficient. Mr Hay stated the case. The debt was owing to Beauchamp Bros. Plaintiff had advanced money to Beauchamp Bros, and had obtained a bill of sale over, the stock-in-trade. The book debts were omitted, but were afterwards included in a separate deed, dated 21st April. The second bill was scarcely necessary, as the book debts only represented the product of the stock -in - trade. He called Henry Tristram, butcher, lately in the employment ot Beauchamp Bros., who deposed that he delivered the goods named in the bill of particulars. E. H. Beauchamp : Remembered on the 24th January last signing a bill of sale. Mr O'Neill objected to the bill of sale going in evidence, as there were pencil alterations in a material part. In answer to the court, witness said the alterations had been made since he signed it. Mr Hay said the bill could be taken in evidence without the pencil marks. The Bench decided to admit the deed. Witness continued : The signatures to the deed were those of himself aud partner. The signatures to the deed of the 21st were also those of himself and partner. The amount of Hunter's demand was £904. Afterwards Messrs Hunter and Co. took possession of all witness' property. Cross-examined : The firm was not solvent when the second deed of assignment was executed. Thought Mr Hunter must have known this, 'Ihey owed Hunter a laige sum of money, whioh they were not able to pay. Hunter got them to make the deed. Re executed the deed with the idea of getting more stock. He had no idea that his account was so largo. Did not sign the deed with the idea of giving Hunter a preference, but to be enabled to carry on the business. It Wcis correct that the second deed was executed to correct an error in the first by the omission of the book debts. The firm had given promissory notes, but they had not been met as they matured. There was one on the /sth April unpaid. S.uv Hunter, who said he had better make an assignment of the book debts, which ought to have been done before. Thought it was on account of his failure to meet the promissory note that Hunter asked for an assignment of the book debts. Read the deed of assignment before signing it. Since then the firm had become bankrupt— on the Bth May, Re-examined i When I signed the original deed of assignment I understood that the book debts were to have been included. William Pradgely, clerk, residing in Hamilton East, remembered serving notices of demand produced on Messrs Beauchamp and Bar well on the 2nd of M*vy. Did not receive the money demanded. Cross-examined : The notices of demand were under the deed of assignment and bill of sale. The pencil marks on the second deed were in Mr Hay's hand-wiit-ing. Did not know who pencilled the alteration on the. other. W. J. Hunter, sworn, deposed : Remembered having dealings with Beanchamp Bros, last year. Theairangement was that he was to get a bill of hale to cover advances made to them. The bill of sale was executed in January. When he found the book debts were not in the bill of sale he spoke to Mr Beauchamp, who expressed his willingness, and a separate deed was made including the book debts. In April he saw the books of Beauchamp Bros., and he considered the money was being squandered ; he determined to put a stop to it. He then made a demand for the amount owing. The money was not paid. Cross-examined : The book debts were to have been included in the bill of sale executed in January. Could not say why they were not put in. Thought it was an error. Asked Mr Hay, who said he didn't know. About the sth of April Beauchamp Bros, dishonoured a promissory note for £100. To the best of his belief the firm of Beauchamp Bros, was solvent at this time, as they said they had money out, and could not get ifc in. They were able to pay the amount of the promissory note, on the 21st day of April, out of moneys belonging to the firm, if they could get the money in. He had four promissory notes from Beauchamp, but only the first was met. Was aware the firm had become bankrupt. Re-examined : First spoke about the book debts not being in the bill of sale some time in February. Though the bills were not met, Beauchamp Bros, paid him money from time to time. This was the case for the plaintiff. Mr O'Neill said the debt was a chose in action, and could not pass under the Chattels Securities Act, 1880. If it could pass it had not been proved that the bill of sale or assignment had been registered, and it must be taken as unregistered, and would therefore be void as against tl}o trustee in bankruptcy. Mr Hay said it did not matter whioh way the court looked at the case the assignment was good. As the law at present stands a chose in action is assignable. The chose in action in question was assigned by deed. Notice was given of the assignment so as to take the debt out of the order and disposition of the bankrupts. If the deed did not come under the Chattels Securities Act, 1880, no registration was required. If it did it would be unnecessary to prove registration, as there had been a seizure, and the debts had been taken out of the order and disposition of the bankrupts at the time they filed their declaration of insolvency. He quoted Brown v. Fryer, 45 Law Times reports, page 521, a case decided in the year 1881. The court reserved judgment until next court day. Judgment in se\eral other similar actions was also reserved till next court day. Le Quesne v. Ellia. Mr Hay for defendant. Claim £1. Reward for lost horse, and 5s grazing. Mr Le Quesne's son was the real plaintiff, he having found the horse, and having first claimed the reward. Mr Hay said there was no contract to bind defendant to pay a reward. If there war, Mr Le Quesne was not the person to, whom it was to be paid. As to the grazing there was no contract. Non-suited without costs.

You will do well to furnish your house from Garlick and Cranwell's. They have now the most complete Furnishing Warehouse in Auckland, furniture to suit all classes, good strong, and cheap. They have Tape tfjr Carpets from 2s 3d per yard, Brus:ols from &> IJ'l per yard, Linoleum from 3s Od to ss, Oil Cloths from Is 6d to 4s 6d per yard, good 12 feet wide Oil Cloths at 3s Cd per yard. Immense assortment of Iron Bedsteads from Infants' Cots to 5 feet wide Half-tester Bedsteads. Double iron Bedf toads from 25s. 1 480 Bedsteads in stock to select ' from. Beddings of all kinds and sizes kept in readiness. Dining, Sitting, Drawing-room Furniture, and and a large assortment of Manchester and Furnishing. -Goods, including a. lot of Cretonnes. Book Catalogues sent free to intending* purchasers, Garlick and Cranwell, City Hail Queen-*treet } Auckland;