DISTRICT COURT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1484, 10 March 1885, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

ASHBURTON— To-day. (Before His Honor Judge Ward.) CIVIL CASE. Friedlander Bros v. Coffey and Brick, claim L 154 4s. —Mr Purnell for the plaintiffs, Mr Wilding for the defendants.— Mr Wilding applied for an adjournment on the ground that a material witness for the defence, Father Coffey, was not in attendance. —Mr Purnell opposed the adjournment. He said that it was a matter of common report that Father Coffey had left in the steamer Tarawera for Australia. Father Coffey was required as a witness, but the other side had not shown that even in the event of an adjournment there was any probability of his attendance being secured. The application was evidently made to evade the effect of negligence on the other side ; they had omitted to file the statement of defence within the time specified by the rules of tfie Court. Mr WiHing stated the character of the evidence required from Father Coffey, la the event of an adjournment the defendants were prepared to give any security required, even to pay the amount, of the claini into Court.— Mr Purnell said that bis clients had a written acknowledgment that the promissory note, t£e subject of the claim, was not paid—Mr Wilding said that he had the written acknowledgment of the plaintiffs that the promissory note was paid.— Daniel Brick, one of the defendants, was called to show that Father Coffey would be a material witness for the defence. He was examined at some length in reference to transactions between the plaintiffs and defendants.—His Honor said that the presence of Father Coffey would at least impart a considerable amount of liveliness to the case, and having regard to all the facts adduced, he would adjourn the case for one month ; the defendant to find security and pay costs.

APPEAL. W. Rowse, appellant, v H. W. Felton, Sergeant of Police, respondent. This was an appeal against the Resident Magistrate’s decision in a recent case under the Licensing Act. Mr Wilding appeared for the applicant, Mr Crisp for the respondent.— Mr Crisp objected to the appeal which he submitted did not comply with section 248 of the Justices of the Peace Act. He further objected to the grounds of the appeal, which were not definitely stated as required by section 249 of the Act. The appeal should have been made under section 236. —Mr Wilding replied that the statement of appeal clearly conveyed the ground upon which it was ' made that the evidence upon 1 which the conviction was recorded was in* 1 sufficient.—Mr Crisp further submitted * that there could be no appeal against a 1 criminal conviction by a Resident Magistrate. Section 6of the Resident Magis- ' trato Act, 1867, provided that a Resident ! Magistrate should exercise the powers of two Justices of the Peace sitting together. * He contended, however, that while there might be an appeal against the conviction of two Justices, there could be no appeal 1 against that of a Resident Magistrate. * Mr Crisp further maintained that there could be no appeal under the Licensing 1 Act, 1881; he quoted section 170 of the ' Act in support of his contention. He also quoted section 199 of the Act, which he held debarred appeal.—Mr Wilding I replied that section 255 of the Justices of I

i the Peace Act would overcome any defii oiency in the statement of the grounds of 1 appeal.—His Honor held that there could 1 be no doubt that the Act contemplated i appeals from the decisions of Resident Magistrates, The case would be re-heared. —Mr Crisp then led the evidence which had been taken in the Resident Magistrate’s Court in reference to the case. —Mr Wilding called evidence for the defence similar tn character to that already reported.—J. A. Caygill and S. Saunders deposed to certain discrepancies in the evidence of Cooksley Bros.’ witnesses in support of the conviction,—Counsel having addressed the Court, the Judge said that he was of opinion that the conviction must be quashed. He felt confident that if the evidence taken before that Court had been available to the Resident Magistrate no conviction would have been recorded. The evidence of the Cooksley Brothers had been shown to be quite unreliable, and without that evidence there was absolutely nothing to support the charge. ' IN BANKRUPTCY—ORDERS POR DISCHARGE. Me Robert McKerrow.—Mir Purnell applied for the debtor’s order of discharge. —Order granted. Me Thomas Trevuraa.—Mr Crisp applied for the debtor’s order of discharge. This case had been adjourned from the I last sitting of the Court, that the debtor might explain why ho had not applied for the order earlier. The debtor was in attendance and said that funds had hitherto been of more value to him than the order of discharge.—Order granted. Me James Gudsell,—Mr Purnell applied for the debtor's order of discharge. —The Deputy Official Assignee stated that the debtor had given a mortgage over all his property to his sister on July, 1884, and filed on October 30th, 1884. The transaction had the appearance of having been intended to defeat the creditors. —lt transpired that the mortgage referred to had been registered in September, 1883.—Order granted, PUBLIC EXAMINATIONS. Me J. A. Persson.—Mr Purnell ap-

peared for the Deputy Official Assignee. In reply to Mr Purnell, the debtor said that he had been examined on oath at the first meeting of his creditors. He had signed the copy of evidence produced. The bankrupt's wife frequently wrote letters and orders on his account. She had written the documents produced.—George Hedges, a basket manufacturer, of Timaru, said that In September last the bankrupt had ordered some goods from hiip. The bankrupt had promised to send cash for the purchases immediately they were supplied. The bankrupt had' never paid for the goods.—Andrew Orr said that he had had dealings with the bankrupt. Had lost confidence in him, and stopped his credit. .n his absence from the shop a note was received from bankrupt by one of the shop hands, asking tcv an ulster, for which cash would be paid on receipt. The Ul? ter was supplied. It would not have been supplied had witness bean in (the shop. Tfie article was worth L2 sa. It had'not beau paid for.Mr Purnell said that ho had another" wi,t-

ness —Mr Hayes—who would give evidence of goods having been o tained from him by bankrupt on a promise of cash payments, But this witness was no

then in Court. The bankrupt had been guilty of going about among the tradesmen getting goods on the plea of paying cash on receipt and never paying at all, but filing a few days afterwards instead. He held that this conduct brought him under the penal clauses of the Act— W. J. Hayes, who now came into Court, said he was a draper in Ashburton. Three weeks before Persson filed he received an order from Persson for goods, on' the understanding, as stated on the written order, that they were to be paid for in cash. They were not paid for, and when ' he saw Persson on the subject the latter said he would send a cheque for the amount at four in the afternoon. On . this promise also supplied him with some ; ticking for mattresses, payment for which' was to be included in the cheqtie. Did not get the cheque and had not yet been paid. —J. 0. Bell, Deputy-Official Assignee, said that after filing the. bankrupt said he had L2 In his postoaibn,' Of this money Persson only paid him 10s, saying that he had paid his solicitor LI, and had used the other 10s jn, domestic expenses.—Mr Parnell said that the three cases—Hedges, Orr, and Hayes—were almost within the nature of obtaining - goods under false pretences, for the bankrupt must have known he was in no position to pay cash for them, as he had pro- ■ raised.—His Worship recalled. J. 0. Bel), and asked the amount of Person's assets. Mr Bell said they amounted to L 49. -His Worship recalled the bankrupt, and point- . ing out that he was accused of obtaining , goods on promises of cash payments and . not paying a penny.—Persson said that . ha gave the orders believing that he would be able to collect debts f owing to him to pay them. He wanted [ the ticking from Hayes to make a bed, for which he was to get paid at five o’clock, and he would have paid Hayes then. But [ the man who wanted the bed was not at 3 home, so that it was not sold.—His Honor , pointed out that his liabilities at this , time, were L3OO, and he had only Ll6O of { assets to pay with. His Honor said he j did not see his way to grant the order a asked for by Mr Purnell. On Mr Crisp’s . f application he would declare the ezaml--0 nation closed, and fix next Court day for a hearing an application for bankrupt’s dis- , charge. j Be W. T. Davison.—The Deputy Offi--0 cial Assignee complained that the _ bankrupt was holding back L 5 from a the Assignee.—W. T. Davison said he had sold Lll worth of goods the day s before he filed. L 5 had gone to the (j solicitor, his wife had got L 5, and he had kept LI for his own use—Hia Worship _ said the examination would be adjourned LS till Davison’s wife came and told what she d had done with the L 5. ; e Be John Cairncroaa. Examination ie closed. d Be William Madiera.—Examination: l 0 closed ,t Be G. A. Vincent.—Order for costa , a granted. te Be Tate and Bohton.—Next Court day , e fixed for application for discharge.