AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume I, Issue 85, 11 May 1877, Page 2

AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, May 4,1877. (Before Justin Aylmer, Esq., R.M. and his Worship the Mayor.,) SHADBOLT V. ARCHER.

Claim for £5 55., being fee for service of mare.

Plaintiff deposed that the arrangement with persons sending mares to his entire Eclat -was, that the fee had to be paid at the time of service, he giving a guarantee that if the mare proved not in foal, the money would be returned. By the defendant: lie did not call this arrangement a guarantee, but it was equal to it. Others had paid this season in this way, and amongst them, Mr. Duxbury. By the Bench : Plaintiff advertised no guarantee. The terms were—mares to be paid for when taken away, and if no foal, the money would be returned.

The defendant stated that Shadbolt told him if he would send the mare to his horse £5 5s included guarantee. If he paid the 5s groomage, it would be all right. At present there was no indication of the mare being in foal. He objected to pay until this was the case. Money being returned was no guarantee —plaintiff might be dead or gone through the court. Examined by plaintiff : Got the bill for amount of present action sometime in January. Made no objection at the time. Never promised either to you or groom to pay as soon as I could ; the groom never asked me for the money. Don't object to the amount of bill, but I want to see if the mare is in foal before paying it.

By the Bench : The mare does not appear to be in foal ; she has now gone five months.

Duncan Kennedy called : Stated he had sent two mares ty Shadbolt's horse—one ,vas to be guaranteed ; the other was not. He was to pay £5 ss. for the guarantee. Shadbolt has asked me for payment. Paid for the one, but not for the other, until she proved in foal. Shadbolt did not press for it. Do not intend to pay until she proves in foal. By the plaintiff: The mare in question never has had a foal, and you said you would not take my money on that account. He did not know what the custom was in regard to guarantee. H. Piper called and examined, said : The custom was to pay in May or June, or as soon as the mare could be shown to be in foal. William Mackay stated that his agreement witli Shadbolt was £5 55., guarantee. He had paid, and expected to get his money returned if his mare was not in foal. The Bench adjourned the case until the sth June next, to give an opportunity to see if the mare was in foal. BARKER V. STANBURY. Claim fOr £17 ss. 6d., goods supplied. Mr. Williams for the defendant, who pleaded not indebted, and took objection to the account not being rendered in full. It started with a balance of amount of account rendered. He could show his client had paid upwards of £3U to the plaintiff, and therefore the balance was on the other side. The Bench adjourned the case till the following day, to enable a bill of particulars to be furnished. Saturday, May 5. BARKER V. tsTAWJJUKY. This was a claim, adjourned from the previous day, to recover the sum of £16 19s. Gd. for refreshments supplied, and money lent. Mr. J. S. Williams appeared for defendant.

T. B. Barker deposed : The account handed in is a correct statement of defendant's transactions with me to the best of my knowledge. The £7 credited was paid to me on or about the 26th May, 1875. I will not swear that I did not receive a cheque from defendant for £2 on December 23rd, 1875, as I have received a number of cheques, which, on presentation, were considered informal by the Bank. Defendant has informed me that whenever he is drunk he is in thehabit of putting a letter too much or too little in his name when signing cheques. I may have supplied him with drink when he was in a state of intoxication.

J. B. Barker, son of plaintiff, remembered defendant giving his father cheques, most of which were torn up, and other cheques supplied in their place. Defendant swore that he had not been at the Head of the Bay between the first and ninth of January ; that he never authorised plaintiff to pay a man named Murphy any money on his account. The debit slips produced from Mr. Westenra showed that cheques amounting to £31 had been issued and paid in plaintiff's favour. He said that plaintiff refused to give him credit for any payments, but merely marked his name on the back of the cheques, and held that he wasin no way indebted to plaintiff. Cross-examined by defendant: I may have remarked when paying you the £7 that I must look at the bill. I have paid you twice over for goods. I swear I owe you nothing, I did not obtain lis. 6d. worth of drinks when Taylor and the schoolmaster were drawing up the agreement. George Stanbury, son of defendant's, corroborated that portion of his father's evidence relative to his absence from the Head of the Bay between the first and ninth of January. Mr. Williams addressed the Court, and concluded by contending that it had been shown that there were actually more cheques paid in plaintiff's favour than the amount of his claim against his client. Mr. Barker said that he had been in the habit of cashing cheques for Stanbury, and it was possible he may have cashed the cheques shown in the debit slip for Stan bury's workmen. He had cashed £300 worth of cheques that week. He contended that Stanbury should not have paid him the £7 on account if he considered he was not indebted.

The Bench, in giving judgment, said it was quite possible Stanbury may have asked Barker to cash these cheques for him. It was evident tbat there was a mistake in the account between the Ist and 9th January. As the case was at present, a nonsuit would be entered, but without prejudice to plaintiff. If Mr. Barker could prove that he supplied the items, he could draw out a new bill, and bring the case on again. Tuesday, May 8, 1877. (Before Justin Aylmer'Esqr., R.M.) PEARDE V. RALFE. This was a claim to recover the sum of £4 55., for professional attendance. The sum of £1 was paid into Court. The defendant held that he had received no detailed statement, and that he had paid all fees in accordance with Dr. Pearde's advertised scale of charges. Dr. Pearde said that, he had attended defendant's wife in an accouchment case in the beginning of December, 1875, and that on the 4th of July he had received £4 on account, the defendant remarking that he was rather short of money. The items were here read out. The defendant contended that it was usual in the medical profession to attend in confinement cases for nine days for a stated fee, and that he had agreed with Dr. Pearde for the sum of £3 3s. He held that the doctor's advertisement was a delusion.

The Bench gave a verdict for the amount claimed, with costs.