AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume 3, Issue 239, 1 November 1878, Page 2

AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, Oct. 29. (Before J. Ollivier, Thos. Potts, and W. B. Tosswill, Esqs., J.'sP.) Civil Cases. Annand v. Harlock.—Claim for £12 12s, balance of account between the parties for money lent. Plaintiff's case was that he had on various occasions lent defendant sums which he specified. He had received £13 on account, leaving a balance due as claimed. Defendant's story was that the £13 was an advance made by him. and that ho had only received enough to pay that, and two additional sums, amounting to £3 9s. The evidence was very contradictory, but, as plaintiff had no documentary evidence whatever to produce in support of his claim, the Bench struck out the disputed items, and gave judgment for the £3 9s admitted. Same v. same.—Claim, £5 lis Gd, for goods supplied. Defendant pleaded payment by cheque of £3, and wished to put in a set-off of £3 Bs, but as notice of the set-off had not been given to plaintiff, it was disallowed. With regard to the cheque for £3, plaintiff did not dispute its having passed through his account, but swore most distinctly that he had not received it from defendant. Judgment for plaintiff for £2 lis Gd. Harlock v. Annand.—Claim, £33 15s 6d, on a promissory note, signed by defendant. The evidence in this case disclosed an extraordinary system of financing and "kiteflying." Plaintiff alleged that the consideration for the bill which was sued upon was a prior bill for £25 odd, given by him (plaintiff) to defendant, and some £7 or £8 in which defendant was indebted to him. Defendant denied the indebtedness, and stated that the former bill had be?h met by him (defendant). Defendant further alleged that a day or two after Ik> hfid signed the bill for £33, plaintiff came to'him and said : "I find I have made a mistake. Ido not require £33. If you will sign this (producing a bill for £26 15s Gd) I will destroy the other." On the strength of this assurance, 'defendant signed the bill tendered to him. Subsequently plaintiff came into his place and tore up a bill, purporting to be the one for £33 now beiore the Court. Defendant, however, gathered up the fragments and pasted them together, when it appeared that the document destroyed was not the bill in question at all. The repaired paper was produced in Court. Some irrelevant matter was introduced as to the name of defendant appearing on the back of the bill which had been destroyed, though he stated he had not written it there. C. Gutberlet also gave evidence, though it had not much bearing on the case. This witness' evidence was chiefly remarkable for the nonchalant manner in which he admitted having signed "any amount" of bills, though he knew nothing about them. Mr Harlock used to tell him to sign them, and that it was " all right." Mrs Annand corroborated her husband's evidence as to the destruction of the bill, and its being represented by plaintiff to be the one now sued on, and the Bench gave judgment for the defendant.

The Court then adjourned