SUPREME COURT.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume V, Issue 647, 15 August 1891, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL BUSINESS. Thsre were many challenges on bolh sides in the se'ection of the jury in the case Hall v. Arundel, and the following gentlemen were left in : —Messrs Mclntosh (foreman), R. Fisher, G. P. Shaw, R. McCoomb. Mr Coopei, with Mr Nolan, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Rees for defendant. Mr Cooper explained that Hall sued Arundel for £3OO, while that defendant had a cross-action for the same sum, which for convenience they had agreed to hear as one case, though there were really two branches to it. The actions arose out of disputes concerning the stock in trade of the shop in which Arundel had carried on business. Mr Cooper, in his opening, said that the position was that Hall had lost about £6OO on the business, while Arundel had regularly drawn something from it, and now also claimed the stock in trade, though he had put no money into the business. Frederick Hall deposed that a hill of sale had been made with Arundel on 11th June, 1888, giving the latter accommodation. In November Arundel got into trouble with his creditors, and witness advanced money to pay them on condition that be sold the business to Hall, the former saying he could not run it any longer, The formal deed was drawn on the 11th December. Next day he had a conversation with Arundel, and it was decided that the latter should continue the business, at a weekly wage of £2 and some additions to be made to the house. Opened a second account at the Bank of New South Wales, for the plumbing business, Arundel to operate on it—it was kept in funds partly from the works and partly from witness' private account. The item of £2O he thought was from the plumbing account, the next item of £lO was from his private account, as was the other amounts appearing in the pass book. Stock was also purchased by him, he always being there when the order was given, the person supplying the goods draw, ing on witness for payment, The pass book on No. 2 account did not represent the whole of the payments on the business, some being from his private account. No, 2 account was only in credit now £2O. After giving credit for all receipts the moneys paid by him into the business would amount to between £5OO and £6OO. Had paid Mr Bigley 30s for the first week’s rent, and arranged that Arundel was thence-forth to pay it out of the number 2 account—there was no other conversation. Iu July, 1889, received a promissory note for twelve months from defendant's brother for £37, as ha was not satisfied with the way the business was going. If at the end of the year there was any loss it had to come out of this promissory note, but none of it was paid, though promises were made. Witness got cross on being told there was only £2O to the credit of the account, and said he would throw the business up at onqe. James Arundel went out and George Arundel asked witness what was the use of turning a man out of a job, witness replied that be was hard pushed for money for bis painting business, and George offered his bill for £5O, which he said could be discounted, and the bill was accepted tor a month, (due February 4th, 1891), but never paid. The business was carried on to April 2nd this year, when witness gave a written notice that all cheques would in future be signed by him, and he would oolleot all accounts. Met defendant in the Bank, and asked him what he m 9S ht by drawing £4O after getting notice not to draw from the account again. He replied that he knew what he was doing, be was acting on advice. Subsequently saw defendant at the shop, told him his services were no longer required, and that he was to bring over the books and get any wages owing. Defendant only laughed. Witness put the things in and looked up the shop. Witness was relating the subsequent scrimmage, when the jury in the preceding cake catqa in, and an adjournment was mads till yssterjay morning.

On the case being called on yeeterday, it was announced that a settlement had been arrived at between the parties. Jn the case Rees and Day v. Percival Barker,’the answers to j-he issues left the verdict very doubtful. Hie Honor' daid it appeared to be for plaintiff, but oounsel for defendant Slid he was quite satisfied withit, Mr Cooper said the answer to one issue was against the weight of evidence, while Mr DoLimtour said ho could show at the proper time'thatr Jt Was'hot. It was agreed that His Honor shduld'givs his decision'after g dug into the matters at iisue, leave reserved to either side to apply for a rew trial. In the case Cooper v. Leahb te VYharl, olairn £282 on promissory notes, judgment was given for plaintiff, leave being reserved to defendant to move for judgment being entered up in bls favor on the ground that the bills were not properly stamped, Mr DeLautour was for plaintiff and Mr Rses for defendant. The case of certain natives against Mr N. Walker broke down completely on the evidence. Mr Bees was for plain'iffq and Mr Carlile for defendant.