RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1397, 5 December 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

ASHB URTON. -To-day,

(Before H. C. S. Baddelty, Esq., R.M.)

Offence against the Borough ByeLaws. —George Addis was chargei with having left a team of horses unattended iu Burnett street on 26th November. — Thomas Bullock deposed to the facts, and defendant was fined 40s and costs. Illegally on Premises. Abraham Kelton was charged with having been illegally on the premises of C. Homersham. —Constable Neil said that he hid arrested the accused under the verandah of Mr Horaeraham’s residence late on Wednesday night.—The accused admitted the offence and was ordered to be imprisoned for three days. Drunk and Resisting the Police. —C. Ryell, who said that he recollected nothing of the facts stated by the arresting constable, was fined 20s and costs with the alternative of two days’ imprisonment on the first, and 30s and costs with the alternative of five days’ imprisonment on the second charge. CIVIL CASES.

J. A. Cay gill v. Ferriman, claim L 23 lla 4d. Mr Wilding for the plaintiff, and Mr Parnell for the defendant.—Mr Wilding, in stating particulars of the claim, said that the set-off of L 9 12s was admitted. The defendant had been assigned to the present plaintiff by the firm of Wilding, Cajgill and Lewis, to enable the set-off to be introduced. —J. A. Caygill, the plaintiff, said that Poyntz had applied to witness to procure his (Poyntz’s) discharge under the Bankruptcy Act, and it was ultimately arranged that witness should take the necessary proceedings, and the present defendant guaranteed the costs. The defendant was pecuniarly interested in Poyntz obtaining his discharge, and displayed more interest in its completion than the debtor himself. The defendant h d pressed witness to fix the amount to be charged, but he had declined to do so excusing himself by stating that it was the first discharge which had passed through the office under the new Act, and witness could not fix the amount of coats. Another item in the account was L 5 5s for the preparation of a bill of sale, Bansou to the defendant. This had, in the first place, been charged to Hanson on the understanding that it should be paid in cash. Some time lat< the defendant wished to obtain the deed, and agreed to allow the amount to be charged to his account. Another item was for the preparation of a lease from Cox to the defendant, and it was understood that this should be paid by the defendant. The defendant had never disputed his general liability, but had questioned the accuracy of the accounts. He had offered to settle the claim by paying LlB, and witness had responded by offering to accept L2O in full settlement.— Cross-examined by Mr Parnell; The defendant had never hinted his liability in Poynlz’s matter to L 5 or L 6. Witness had received JL.S from Poyntz and L 9 from the Court on account of the bankruptcy. Witness was aware that agreements were frequently made for a specific sum for obtaining a debtor’s discharge. L 5 or L 6 was frequently taken for the service, but witness had never accepted such an amount. Witness had, at the request of the defendant, tendered an account to Cox for the preparation of the lease referred to. He had not relinquished his claim upon defendant. He had caver agreed that the charge for ’the preparation of Hanson’s bill of sale should be L 4 4s. —Re-examined by Mr Wilding : The proceedings in connection with Poyntz's bankruptcy were unusually intricate. —F. Ferriman, the defendant said that he had undertaken to pay a sum not exceeding L 5 or L 6 towards the cost of obtaining Poyntz’s discharge. Witness had repudiated the present charges immediately the account was rendered. Plaintiff had offered to accept L2O in settle-

raent of the account, and witness had offered LlB. It waa distinctly undjrstood that the preparation of the lease of Cox’s

should be charged to the leasee. The lease had never been completed. The plaintiff had stated that the charge for the preparation of the bill of sale from Hanson would be L 5 ss, if charged to the mortgagor, but L 4 4s if paid by witness Subsequently plaintiff had told witness that Hanson had not paid the amount, and it was agreed that il should be charged to witness’s account at L 4 4s. — Cross-examined by Mr Wilding : Witness

was anxious that Poyntz should obtain his discharge.—Re-examined by Mr Purnell : The offer of LlB was made by witness without prejudice. —G. D. -Branson, solicitor, said that he had had considerable experience in bankruptcy business. He usually charged L 5 or L 6 for obtaining a debtor’s discharge. He did not like to be too hard upon applicants, as the preliminary charges under the new Act were very oppressive.—Crossexamined by Mr Wilding: He noticed some slight over charges in the plairftiff’s account produced. The item LI 3s for posting notices witness would have charged as 3s 4d. Ho thought some of the services alleged by the account to have been rendered were unnecessary. The scale of charges under the new Act was unfavorable to solicitors, and highly favorable to newsmper proprietors.—John Cox, farmer, said that he had accompanied the defendant to the plaintiff’s office for t e purpose of arranging for the preparation of a lease. The plaintiff had said that he would hold the defendant responsible for the cost. Witness had not made a precisely opposite statement to defendant’s solicitor yesterday.—Counsel having addressed the Bench, the Magistrate was proceeding to give judgment when Mr Wilding applied for a non suit, which was granted, the plaintiff to pay coats. Hicks v Morris, claim L2 ss, one week’s wages in lieu of notice.—Mr Branson for the plaintiff, Mr Wilding for the defendant. —The evidence of the plaintiff and defendant having been taken, judgment was given for the defendant.