Civil Cases.

Inangahua Times, Volume VII, Issue 1059, 10 March 1882, Page 2

Civil Cases.

HINDMARSH V. M'GAFFIN. Mr Jones for the plaintiff^ Mr Lynch for the defence. On the application of defendant's solicitor the case was adjourned, on payment of costs, till the next Court day. GORDON V. ATKIN. This was an interpleader summons in which Mr Mirfin claimed the goods seized in execution by the plaintiff in the above case. Mr Lynch appeared for the claimant to the goods, Mr Jones for the plaintiff in -the action. The facts as I stated by Mr Lynch were that the goods in question had been purchased by Mirfin in September, 1881, but had been allowed to remain in possession of Atkin prior to their seizure. The goods were delivered to Mr Mirfin on the Ist of September, and he paid Atkin for them. The goods consisted of furniture only, and Atkin was to rent it at 2s. per week. In reply to Mr Jones, Mr Mirfin said that Atkin delivered the goods to him personally on the day of purchase, the Ist : of September. The object was to secure possession and security for the money advanced to Atkin in order to allow him to pay his debts. There was a second verbal agreement by which the rent of the furniture was reduced to a shilling a week, which was exclusive of ss. a week for the cottage, and was not deducted from Atkins wages. Witness paid Atkin £24 cash for the goods. The latter had paid him all the rent due on them in cash. The sale note was given on the Ist of September. The sale- ! note produced is the only onegiven, and at a week's notice, witness was to have power to sell the goods. The goods were sent to the offioe late at night, and were stowed in the back of the building. They were taken away again next day, but witness could not tell the time. The boy Ross was employed in the office, but was only there in the day time. Mr Jones applied for immediate subpoenas for the lad named, and also for Walter Atkin, which the Magistrate allowed. Mr Jones submitted that the transfer of the goods was not a bona fide one, and that the goods actually never passed into the possession of the claimant He argued that a proper sale had never effected, and that tiie statements made by the claimant could not be relied on. He commented on the fact that the furniture had been removed at night, and on other circumstances in support ofthe alleged want of bonajides in the whole transaction. He urged that the document that passed was virtually a bill of sale and should have been registered, and quoted authorities in support of this view. He concluded by saying that the Bench could, after hearing the evidence, have no doubt that the transaction was a fraudulent one from the beginning to to the end. Walter Atkin was called by Mr Jones and contradicted the claimant as to the sale and delivery of the goods. The receipt produced was given in 1880, not 1881 as shown in error. He paid rent for the things at the rate of two shillings per week out of his wages account, not in cash. It was eight or nine months since he had a settlement. He was to pay the balance of the money when he was in a position to do it. The rent of of the house was included in the arrangement between him and Mr Mirfin. Donald Ross, a boy employed in the claimant, was examined as to the articles named in the list being on the premises of the claimant, and proved that they were brought there from the Ahaura in 1880, and not in 1881 as stated by Mirfin. Robert Roulston proved that in June, 1881, Atkin bought a number of household sundries at Mr Gray's sale. Mr Mirfin bought the house. George Willis, bailiff of the Ccurt, proved the seizure of goods in execution iri the case of Gordon v. Atkin. He defendant produced an agreement, and Mr Mirfin subsequently claimed the goods seized which were detailed in a schedule, but not the one now produced. The Magistrate commented on the nonproduction of the original agreement of sale alleged to have been made. The pointed out several discrepancies in the evidence given in support of the claim made to the goods. The statements were very conflicting, and the sale was only a colorable one to protect Atkin against his creditors. The order of the Court was that the bailiff should sell, and the interpleader was therefore dismissed with costa £2 lis., including the professsional fees. LEB V. DUGGAN, In this case, both Mr Jones and Mr Lynch appeared for the plaintiff, and the defendant asked the Court to adjourn the case in order that he might be represented by counsel. The request was granted, and the case put at the bottom of the list. LEE V. ALEXANDER. Mr Lynch for the plaintiff; Mr Jones for the defence. This was an action to recover the sum of £96 Bs., for damages alleged to have been sustained through breach of contract in defendant refusing to carry out an agreement for purchase of 385 shares in

| the Specimen Hill Quartz Comi pany. Plaintiff said that the defendant instructed him to sell the above shares on the Uth of January last at 15s. per share. On the 16th of that month he disposed of the shares to Mr Brennan at that figure, but an hour or two subsequently to the sale he received a letter from the defendant warning him not to sell as the shares were improving in value. He, however, had concluded the sale at that time but could not give the transfer, and in order to carry out his bargain had to purchase shares at a higher figure to do so. The damage sustained thereby was now assessed at the sum sought to be recovered. The defence was that the plaintiff exceeded his authority in selling the shares, and that it was understood he should not sell absolutely without sending a special messenger out to defendant for further conformation of any proposed sale. The evidence was very conflicting, both sides giving equally strong and contradictory testimony as to the times and dates when the alleged authority was given by the defendant The counsel on each side addressed the Court on behalf of their respective clients. The \agistrate, in giving judgment, said there had been a great conflict of evidence, but in consequence of the very unsatisfactory nature of one witness' evidence he should non-suit the plaintiff, so as to give an opportunity of bringing on the case again. Mr Jones applied for costs which were granted ; in all £2 17s. The Court then adjourned.