3. All times have elapsed and things happened necessary to Claim for entitle the plaintiff to be paid the said sums, yet the defendant

money lent.

has not paid the same or any part thereof.

The plaintiff claims :

(1.) £150 in respect of principal.

(2.) £37 in respect of interest.

Claim by Plaintiff's in the Alternative for Money lent and on an Account stated.

1. Between the 23rd of November, 1870, and the commencement of this action, the plaintiffs from time to time lent to the defendant moneys amounting to £108 15s. Od., and paid for the defendant from time to time at his request sums amounting to £78 178. 9d., the particulars whereof are as follow :—

1870, Nov. 24th

£30 0 0

Another claim for

money

lent, setting out an

alternative

case.

Cash lent

L. R. 4 H. L. 226; Baxendale v. L. & S. W. Ry. Co., L. R. 1 Ex. 137.) So if a sheriff obtain payment by wrongful seizure and threat to sell goods not liable to the execution. (Valpy v. Manley, 1 C. B. 594.)

Where a person pays money for the recovery of which an action is brought, even without prejudice, he cannot recover it, though the action was not well founded. (Brown v. McKinally, 1 Esp. 279.) So if the money has been regularly recovered under legal process. (Hamlet v. Richard son, 9 Bing. 644.) Even though recovered after judgment by a writ fraudulently issued to levy a sum already paid by the judgment debtor. (De Medina v. Grove, 10 Q. B. 152.)

GG 2

Money obtained under legal

process cannot be recovered,

Another

claim for money lent, set

ting out an alternative

case.

2. The plaintiffs will in the alternative, if necessary, allege that £85 168. 6d. of the said money was lent to the defendant by the plaintiff M. R., and £22 188. 8d. by the plaintiff J. R., and that the whole of the £78 178. 9d. was paid by the plaintiff J. R. for the defendant at his request.

3. The plaintiffs will further, if necessary, allege that on the 15th of March, 1875, the plaintiffs and the defendant met and An account went through the various items of the accounts set out in the 1st paragraph, and that on that day an account was duly settled between the parties, showing a balance of £187 128. 9d. due to the plaintiffs.

stated.

Defence.

The plaintiffs and each of them claim £187 12s. 9d., and interest thereon till judgment.

Statement of Defence.

1. The defendant denies that the plaintiffs, or either of them, ever lent to him or paid for him at his request any of the sums of money mentioned in the statement of claim, or any part of the said sums.

2. The defendant says that the said sums of money alleged to have been lent to him by the plaintiffs, or any of them, were all given to him by the plaintiffs, or one of them, in part payment of various services rendered by him to the plaintiffs, at various times between December, 1867, and July, 1876, in the capacity of secretary and otherwise to the plaintiffs, and secretary and manager of various companies started by them, and that the said sums of money alleged to have been paid by the plaintiffs or one of them, for the defendant at his request were all paid by the plaintiffs, or one of them, for clothes supplied to the defendant by thedesire and at the expense of the plaintiffs in further part payment of the said services, and in order that the defendant might support his character of secretary or manager as aforesaid by appearing well and respectably dressed in public.

3. The defendant further says that if he was at any time previous to the end of the year 1873 indebted to the plaintiffs in any sums of money, he at the end of that year satisfied and discharged all claims of theirs in respect of any such sums of money by payment.

4. The defendant denies that any accounts were ever stated between the defendant and the plaintiffs, or either of them

regarding the said sums of money alleged in the statement of claim to be due from the defendant to the plaintiffs, or one of them.

Defence to

claim for money lent.

Claim by Master of a Ship against Owners for Money expended in repairing, &c., the Ship.

1. The plaintiff is a master mariner. The defendants are Claim by shipowners in the city of London.

shipmaster for money

on the ship.

2. On the 28th of October, 1874, the plaintiff was engaged expended by defendants as captain of the ship "C.," then about to proceed to Brisbane, Australia, with emigrants. The plaintiff sailed in command of the said ship to Brisbane.

3. From Brisbane plaintiff went in the said ship to Newcastle, New South Wales. While there, the metal on the ship's bottom was found to be in bad condition, and the plaintiff in the interest of the defendants was compelled to have it repaired.

4. The plaintiff then proceeded to Hong Kong, where the said ship was remetalled by requirement of the local surveyor, and by the defendants' direction and authority.

5. The plaintiff next proceeded from Hong Kong to San Francisco, and encountering heavy weather on the voyage, was compelled to have the said ship repaired at San Francisco.

6. From San Francisco the plaintiff proceeded to Melbourne, where, by defendants' authority, the plaintiff accepted an offer to charter the said ship to London for £2600. After the cargo had been partly loaded under the said charterparty, the decks of the said ship were condemned by the local surveyors. The plaintiff telegraphed to the defendants for instructions, but receiving none for six weeks, ordered the needful repairs to be done to the said ship.

7. The plaintiff was consequently compelled to expend much money in and about the said repairs, and for other necessary things and otherwise on account of the said ship, and of the defendants as owners thereof.

8. The plaintiff was also entitled to wages at £200 per year, and to allowances as captain of the said ship. Full accounts of all the sums to which the plaintiff is entitled in respect of the matters alleged in the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th paragraphs, have been supplied to the defendants.

Claim for
money ex-

pended on
repair of
a ship.

Claim for money obtained by false accounts.

9. Yet the defendants have not paid the monies due by them to the plaintiff, or any part thereof.

The plaintiff's claim :

(1.) £800.

(2.) Such further and other relief, &c.

Action to recover Money improperly obtained by Means of false Accounts.

1. The plaintiffs are [a Water Company at M., having extensive waterworks, mains, and other matters and things incident to the business of water supply.

2. The defendants are engineers carrying on business at —, under the style or firm of J. Q. & Son.

3. For many years prior to and until July, 1876, the defendant J. Q. the elder was employed by the plaintiffs in their service as their engineer, and in the superintendence and management of their said works, mains, and premises. In or about the year 1869 the defendant J. Q. the younger entered the service of the plaintiffs, and was then appointed by the plaintiffs to assist the defendant J. Q. the elder in his said employment.

4. It was the business and duty of the defendants in the course of their employment to make various payments on behalf of the plaintiffs, and to render to the plaintiffs true and just accounts of the said payments, and on the faith of such accounts so rendered the plaintiffs from time to time settled with the defendants, and paid and allowed to them the sums shown by the said accounts as having been paid on behalf of the plaintiffs.

5. The defendants at various times rendered accounts to the plaintiffs, purporting to be accounts rendered in pursuance of their duty mentioned in the last paragraph, which accounts purported to show large sums of money to have been paid by the defendants on behalf of the plaintiffs for the removal of ashes, and for candles and coals, and for survey of their district, and also sums amounting in the whole to £5 per week for a long period, represented in the said accounts to have been paid to workmen and others on behalf of the plaintiffs, none of which said sums of money had or have been paid as represented in the said accounts.

6. The plaintiffs, on the faith of the said accounts, and believ- Claim for ing the said sums to have been paid as represented by the said obtained accounts, paid the same to the defendants. Particulars of the by false over payments mentioned in this paragraph have been delivered to the defendants.

7. The defendants have also received on behalf of the plaintiffs moneys which it was their duty to have accounted for and paid over to the plaintiffs, that is to say, sums amounting to £700 received by the defendants on behalf of the plaintiffs from the builders or occupiers of houses for the costs and charges of laying on water to such houses, and sums amounting to £1600 commission upon water rates collected by clerks in the employ of the plaintiffs.

8. The defendants have not, nor has either of them, accounted for or paid over to the plaintiffs the sums mentioned in this paragraph, or any of them.

The plaintiffs claim :

(1.) £8000, and interest thereon till judgment. (2.) An account.

Another Claim for Money paid by Mistake.

1. In the month of October, 1875, Messrs. H. & C., of London, shipped and consigned to the plaintiffs at Sydney, New South Wales, as agents for sale, 50 cases of oil.

2. About the date of shipment of the said oil, the plaintiffs, through A. B., one of their partners, who then resided and still resides in England, advanced to Messrs. H. & C. on the security of the said oil the sum of £200, upon the terms that the plaintiffs should sell the said oil, and after repaying to themselves the said sum of £200 out of the proceeds of the sale, should remit the balance to Messrs. H. & C.

3. The said oil duly arrived at Sydney, and was sold by the plaintiffs, and the net proceeds of such sale amounted to £500.

4. The plaintiffs by mistake and inadvertence, either not knowing or forgetting that £200 had been already advanced by them on the security of the said oil, remitted the whole of the said sum of £500 to Messrs. H. & C.

5. Before the said remittance of £500 so sent by mistake

accounts.

Claim for money paid by mistake.