Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

AS B BURTON — Y bst red ay,

(Before H. C. S. Baddeley Esq, R.M.) Compton v. Brown.—On the plaintiff being called by Mr Wilding, a legal argument ensued as to what agreement should be put in. The original was alleged to be lost and Mr Crisp submitted that he bad offered to allow an examined copy to be put in, which was better than any oral evidence.—W. B. Compton being sworn said that in 1882. he sold two quarter-acre sections for L 550, the conditions being L 250 cash and a mortgage. Signed a written agreement prepared by Mr Branson in Power’s Hotel, and subsequently signed another copy in Mr Branson’s office after 15th June. Received cheque for the purchase money about June 27, and signed transfer to Samuel Brown. The conditions enforced witness to apply for a license at next annual meeting, and on receiving it was to have LIOO from defendant and a further LSO when the house was transferred to Brown or his nominee. Witness was to forfeit LSO if he failed to get a license. Twelve months after defendant valued the property at L 750. Gave up possession of the property to defendant on June 29th, when it was too late to apply for a license. Did not apply for a license on account of Brown objecting. Witness came down to Methven last May and saw defendant re the license, and he said he would nut held one as he had had enough with the one he had had. Told Brown he would have to pay a penalty of 1100 according to agreement, but defendant said ha would not. Defendant valued property at L 750, exclusive of the LIOO. Was informed by S. Brown after the transfer was made that he had turned all

his property over to his brother. At the time he sold the property a second house was required for Methven, and witness thought ho would probably have got the license. Defendant had had control over the property since the time of the transfer. Had done his • best to obtain the ' copy of the agreement, but. was unsuccessful.' —Cross-examined ; Was to receive L 250 in cash, but could not explain receipt produced for L 276 received from Brown. Had informed several people about the terms of the agreement, but could, not say whether he told the police or the Licensing Committee. Did not know that Brown had lost a license for the Central Hotel, and witness was to take out the license in his own name, and a transfer afterwards to be made to the defendant or a relative. In the latter case the amount to be paid by the defendant was to bo LSO not LIOO. Was aware that a transfer of the premises had been made to John Brown, but did not object to it. ‘ Witness also knew that -defendant had been through the Bankruptcy Court since the agreement was made. Did not claim for the amount now sued for, because he did not consider it to be due until June. No proceedings had een taken by witness to procure a licshse prior to September, 1882, nor had he taken any steps under the Act of 1881. Defendant objected to witness making any application. It was. true that Cookson offered to turn the place over to witness for the last three months of his term. That would be about the latter end of last April. Had never been offered the lease by Brown, nor aid he (witness) offer to take the premises back again for stock, so far as he could re- - member.-Re-examined by Mr Wilding: Witness had no possible motive for abstaining from earning his LIOO, and was always ready and willing to do it —This closed the plaintiff’s case, and Mr Branson was then called, for the purpose of identifying copy of a agreement put in** He said that the signed agreement was lost, bat its provisions were similar to the document before the Court.—Mr Crisp intimated that he did not intend to call any evidence, and counsel having addressed the Court at considerable length, his Worship reserved his decision.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AG18831013.2.8

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 1073, 13 October 1883, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
694

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 1073, 13 October 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 1073, 13 October 1883, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert