RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1382, 17 November 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

ASHBURTON— To-day. . (Before H. C. S. Baddeley, Esq., 8.M.) CIVIL CASES. Ryell v Headley and Butter worth, claim L 5 LOs.j— Mr Branson for „the plaintiff.—Judgment for the amount claimed and costa. Fciedlander Bros v Hussey, claim L 7 la 2d. —Judgment [for the amount claimed, with costa. Joseph James Dawson v H. Hudson, • claim L 33 1 2d—Mr Crisp for the plaintiff; Mr Parnell, with Mr Branson, for the defendant. —Dawson, the plaintiff, do posed that he had had a great number of transactions with the defendant. About four years ago witness accompanied defendant to Mr Robinson’s office, where witness received a cheque for L3O from that gentleman, and handed it to the defendant as a loan. The parties afterwards returned to defendant’s bouse together, but witness did not receive repayment of the cheque then, and had not done so since. Witness had applied for repayment. Robinson was present when the cheque was handed to defendant.—Crossexamined by Mr Purnell ; Defendant had, when asking for the loan, said that he was short of cash. Witness had not asked defendant to cash the cheque on account of not wishing to pass it through his own banking account. Witness at that time was being sued by launders Bros for the amount of an overdue bill. The bill had not been paid. Witnesshad on a previous occasion made a mistake in charging a cheque to defendant.—Reexamination by Mr Crisp ; Witness disputed Saunders Bros’ claim, and hid no intention of paying it.—To the Bench: He had not defended Saunders Bros’ suit, and execution had been issued.— G. M. Robinson said that four years ago he had been manager for P. Cunningham and Co. He recollected paying plaintiff a cheque for L3O Is 2d, the balance of an account, in the presence of the defendant. Defendant had asked plaintiff to let him have the cheque, and as they were leaving the office the latter handed the former a paper which witness believed to be the cheque.—Cross examined by Mr Purnell : Witnosi knew of this action previous to it coming before the Court—Charles Havvsqn, accountant at the Bank of New Zealand, produced a bank slip dated Ist Dec., 1880, of money paid into the Rank by the defendant. —Cross examined by Mr Parnell : There was an alteration in the date of the Bank slip which would indicate either a simple error or that the amount had been lodged too late to credit the same day and bad been passed through the Bank’s books on the fo’lowing day. The defendant’s account was in credit before the money represented by the slip was paid in. His account was generally in credit. —W. IJ. Gundry said he had been engaged ip the arbitration between the parties to the present action. The arbitration resulted in an award of about LBQ to the present plaintiff. The presept defendant had claimed about L2O. Defendant had told witness that he had changed the cheque, the subject of the present action, for plaintiff. On another occasion defendant said that he had repaid the amount by two ten pound notes and another payment of which he could not recollect particulars. Witness was confident that these statements referred to the cheque now sued for.—H. Hudson, the defendant, said that he had been present when the plaintiff teceived the cheque from Robinson. In consequence bf plaiptifjfa overdue bill to Saunders Brothers it was arranggd that the cheque should be passed through witness? account, Witness handed cash for the 1 amount to plaintiff on their arrival togst'hsr at Waterton. Witness had prepared the bank s’ip the same evening and bent it to Ashburton the following morning! ' WitrieaS had frequently changed ’cheques in the saule way, l and had no need of money at the time. Plaintiff had pret viouily wade a olaiw wpwnrituew fa* the

amount of a cheque changed, and subsequently withdrew it. Witness’ wife was present when the cheque was changed.— Cross-examined by Mr Crisp ; Witness’ wife b the money from the cash

box to change the cheque.—Annie Hudson, the wife of the defendant, said she recollected her husband cashing a cheque 1 for about L3O for the plaintiff. Plaintiff had said that he did not wish the cheque to pass through his own banking account.- I The defendant was perfectly sober on the I evening in question. —S. Saunders deposed that hio late firm held an overdue promissory note of plaintiff’s for LIBO. No part of the amount had been paid. Witness had not previously understood | plaintiff to dispute his liability. —' Alfred Curtis said that he had been employed with Mr Gundry in the arbitration between the parties to the present action. Witness heard the statements referred to .by Gundry alleged to have been made by defendant in respect to the payment of the cheque, and witness-thought they had been misunderstood by his colleague.— Counsel having addressed the Bench at considerable length, judgment was given for the defendant with oasts.

Graham v. Price, claim Ll 7 15s lOd . The'plaintiff said that in May last Gerrard’s shepherds had put a large mob of sheep on his farm. Defendant and witness had some conversation, and ultimately arranged to impound the sheep and halve the charges. Under this arrangement witness had received Ll 9 Is from the defendant. Gerrard had since sued witness | for fees overcharged amounting to L 37 7s, and had obtained a j udgment. Defendant had agreed to share the risk and legal charges. Witness had applied to the defendant for his share, and the latter said I that he had paid it to Mr Caygill. It had since transpired that he had not paid it.—Cross-examined by Mr Purnell : Defendant had called witness’s attention to the sheep trespassing.—J. Caygill, solicitor, said that the parties to the present action had told him of their intention to share the fees and damages. On Gerrard obtaining judgment against the plaintiff witness paid the amount with costs. Sent a memo to Price re the Ll 7 15s, and he subsequently told witness he had paid the amount to Graham. The latter denied that payment had been made afterwards. Defendant did not dispute his liability. T. W. Price, the defendant said that he had recently been poundkeeper. Witness had met the plaintiff at the Somerset Hotel, and the latter gave him information in reference to the sheep trespassing. Witness had told defendant that damages to the extent of 3d per head might be claimed, and the latter had offered to halve the amount if witness would assist in impounding the sheep. The usual pounding foes were not to be shared. Witness had, as poundkeeper, received L 25 from Gerrard for damages. Witness first gave him Ll 9 Is and L 6 a weeE afterwards. The letter produced, from Messrs Wilding and Oaypilt was the only one received. —Cross-examined by Mr Wilding: Me Caygill asked witness to pay half of the amount and witness refused, but could not say if this happened prior to the receipt of the letter. Did not remember telling Mr Caygill that he had paid Graham, hut would not swear ha bad not done so. Received L3B odd from Mr Jameson, as agent for Gerrard, and gave a cheque to Graham for Lid because witness had no more money in the bank and plaintiff owed him some money.—Mr Purnell submitted that the case dealt with a (partnership account and consequently the Court had no jurisdiction. Another point he relied on was that the transaction disclosed was illegal and could not be supported by the Court on the grounds of public policy.—Mr Wilding having replioi, his Worship said that he was of opinion that under the circumstances he , had no jurisdiction. At the same time ho must say that the defendant had actej in a most disgraceful way.—Mr Wilding asked his Worship to state a case for appeal to the Supreme Court, but the ■ Bench decided that he had no power to do so as he had no jurisdiction. Harrap v Jones, claim L6.—Mr Branson for the plaintiff ; Mr Wilding for the defendant.—J. Harrap, the plaintiff, said that he had recently made a suite cf • furniture for the defendant for Lll 10 s; i L 6 had been paid on account, the balance remained unpaid. The defendant had i expressed himself satisfied with the goods. I (A.t this stage the parties determined to 1 settle the case out of Court.) Perason v Harrap, claim L2 3s 4i. —Judgment for the amount claimed with ; costs. Illegal Rescue— Nicholas Walsh was charged with having unlawfully rescued a ; number of sheep which were being driven to pound by 0. Primmer, drover for 1 Matson, Cox and Co,—Mr Wilding conducted the prosecution, and Mr Parnell appeared for the defendant. —Mr David 1 Thomas, of Matson, Cox and Co., said that his firm were the authorised agents 1 of the Colonial Investment Co. for a farm recently occupied by Dolomore. A part of the fence between the farm and defendant’s property was in very Dad oraer. The accused had been in treaty for the purchase of the land, but the parties had not agreed as to price. When the negotiations terminated, witness gave the accused notice that if he allowed his sheep to trespass they would be impounded. The sheep had been allowed to trespass, and witness had sent Primmer to impound them.—Cross-examined by Me Purnell ; Witness could not say in whose name the title of the land rested. He had visited the farm about two weeks before the alleged rescue. There was a quantity of good grass on the farm at that fitqe, but subsequently it had been destroyed by accused’s sheep. Thursday following that on which witness threatened to impound accused’s sheep the latter had complained of the condition of the division fence. (Left sitting.)