The Bucks Standard, June 5th 1897

INTERESTING COUNTY COURT CASE. At the Wellingborough County Court on Tuesday, June 1, before His Honour Judge Snagge, Tom Arnsby Lovell, auctioneer, Northampton and Towcester, sued Charles Whiting, farmer, Castlethorpe, in an action of contract, commenced in the High Court of Justice and sent by order to the District Registrar under Section 65 of the County Court Act, 1888, to be tried in this Court, to recover the price of growing crops sold to the defendant to the amount of £55 14s. Mr. W. Ryland D. Adkins (instructed by Mr. C. J. Allinson, Northampton), represented the plaintiff, and Mr. R. Attenborough (instructed by Messrs. Bull, Newport Pagnell), defended. Mr. Attenborough opened the case and pointed out that there was no dispute as to the figures, and the fact to be decided was whether money could be claimed as discharging a debt owing by a third person. The plaintiff, he said, was an auctioneer of Northampton and Towcester, and defendant was one of three brothers who carried on business as farmers and agricultural machine proprietors. The account arose out of a sale of cropping held by the plaintiff for a farmer named Stone at Hanslope. The defendant purchased certain portions of the cropping. But under such circumstances that he claimed to be entitled to say that the amount should be set off against what was owing to him by Stone. The amount now sued for was £55 14s, but Stone owed the defendant £33 6s, and after deducting that, the balance of £22 8s had been paid into Court on a plea of tend.. It was urged that this was not a case of a man seeking to set off, but there was an express agreement that whatever Whiting bought at the sale should be set off against what is now owing to hi by Stone, who was an infirm old man whose business was managed by Mr. Richardson his son-in-law. At the request of Mr. Richardson defendant cultivated Stone’s farm, and was told by that gentleman that he could set off the purchase at the sale of cropping from the amount owing to him for his work. Defendant first gave evidence, and stated that in the early part of 1895 he was asked by Richardson to cultivate the farm, and did so. On the question of payment being brought up Richardson replied that there was a field of clover he could have, and that the crops and corn would afterwards be sold, from which he would be paid. Witness did the cultivation, and the account came to £49 19s. 1d., for which he gave credit for £16 13s. 1d., the value of the field of clover, leaving the balance owing at £33 16s. On the day of the sale witness saw the plaintiff, and said to him, “Anything I buy to-day will you allow off our account” Mr. Lovell replied, “What does Mr. Richardson say?” to which witness responded that Mr. Richardson said he was willing, and plaintiff then stated, “Well, it will be all right then.” Witness bought four lots, which came to the amount of the claim. In answer to Mr. Atkins, defendant said he knew that Stone owed money to someone named Payne, but he did not hear Mr. Lovell say, “I have instructions to pay you and Payne after I have paid myself.” He believed plaintiff had advanced money to Stone for rent and other things. In subsequent interviews Mr. Lovell never denied the conversation given in evidence, but he refused to taken the £22 8s. when witness offered it to him. In the course of his evidence plaintiff said that he had paid Stone’s rent several times, and had a lieu on his crops. He had paid his rent in April 1895, and the sale of crops was in August. They fetched £81 12s., which was less than the amount owed by Stone to witness for rent and money borrowed. He spoke to Whiting at the sale, but never agreed that defendant should set of anything he bought against what was owing to defendant. Witness told him Mr. Richardson said that he (plaintiff) was to pay Whiting and Payne after he had paid himself. When defendant offered him the £22 he refused to take it. In answer to Mr. Attenborough, plaintiff said he could not say what amount Stone’s estate owed him now, but he should think about £70. He was not suing Stone’s representatives, but for himself. In reply to His Honour, Lovell said he did not tell Whiting that what was owing to him (plaintiff) would probably absorb the whole of the proceeds of the sale. Thomas Richardson stated that he did not remember anything being said about Whiting setting off the purchase against the amount owing to him, but he expected that Whiting would be paid after plaintiff had been paid. By Mr. Attenborough: Witness asked Mr. Whiting to cultivate the farm, and told him to set off the field of clover, but he never told him that he could put himself right for the remainder at the sale. He thought the crops would make there times the money they did, and that there would be sufficient to pay the plaintiff and defendant. During the sale he advised Whiting to bid for the crops, as that would be the only chance he would have of getting the money. His Honour, in giving judgement, said he had come to the conclusion that defendant had been given to understand that he would be allowed to set off the amount of his purchase against what was owing to him, and he therefore gave a verdict for the defendant, the effect of which would be that the plaintiff would receive the amount paid into the Court. With regard to the costs, His Honour gave judgement for defendant upon the sum not recovered by plaintiff, on the County Court scale.