AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume V, Issue 430, 3 September 1880, Page 2

AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, August 31, 1880.

(Before Justin Aylmer, Esq., R M.) And H. 11. Feiiton, E<q., J.P. CATTLE TRESPASS. Mrs P. Malmnnche was charged with allowing two cows to wander at large on August 14. Defendant admitted the charge, but said her two children watched the cattle all day to see that they did not get out of the paddock ; the day in question was a wet one, and the children had just gone into the house for a few minutes. The cows were not five minutes on the road. The Bench dismissed tho case with a caution. G. Armstrong was charged with allowing his horse to wander at large on Aug. 14.—Defendant pleaded guilty, afid was fined 5s and coats. civil cases. Wiggins and Co. v. P. C. Anderson. Claim L 4 19s.—Judgment by default fof amount claimed and costs. J. Savage v. D. Blackmoor. Claim 4s 6d, value of three fowls.—Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs. Mullholland v. A. Firmston. Claim, L 23 10s.—Defendant stated that he had paid L 5 of the amount, and the plaintiff admitted a set-off to the amount of Ll6 17s. The Bench gave judgment for the balance of amount claimed, being L 7 10s and costs. A. Rodrigues v. P. O'Reilly. Claim L 26 7s.—Mr Maning, who was employed to collect the account, appeared, but was not allowed to conduct the case. Consequently Mr Rodrigues appeared. He stated that the amount claimed was for the balance of a promissory note, which was drawn last March by Mr Worsley, and backed by the defendant, for whom he had discounted it. md paid over tho amount, less a trifling discount, in cash. From the evidence it appeared that when the bill became due it was dishonored. Notice of the fact was given to plaintiff by the bank manager ; plaintiff showed the notice to O'Reilly the same day that he received it, and on the same evening saw both defendant and Worsley in his house on tho matter ; they promised to refund the money in a few days ; failing to do so, however, plaintiff sued O'Reilly for the amount of tho bill, but owing to his being a foreigner he failed to make the Bench, or the counsel employed by defendant, understand that he had givsn defendant notice, although several parties in Court at the time declare Rodrigues distinctly stated there that he had given O'Reilly notice immediately after he received it ; owing to this he was nonsuited. He was then recommended to try Worsley and see what he was worth, O'Reiily distinctly undertaking to pay the balance it' Rodrigues would distrain upon Worslcy's goods, and making it appear that to his (O'Reilly's) personal knowledge Worsley had sufficient, or at any rate nearly sufficient, effects to liquidate the debt. Tins undertaking was verbally made in the presence of Mr Nalder # Rodrigues consequently sued Worsley and distrained upon his effects, the result being that the costs or Court, auctioneers' commission, advertising, etc., were 7s more than the effects realised, thu-i making the debt 7s more than the debt was originally. It was for the balance plaintiff now sued. He called

Mr G. W. Nalder, who appeared to remember very little relative to the matter. In reply, however, to the most persistent questioning by the plaintiff, he acknowledged the facts of the case to be much the same as those stated. He concluded his evidence by saying, " But I am afraid, Mr Rodrigues, yours is a very weak

case."

The Bench in giving judgment appeared to lose sight of the fact that the plaintiff was suing for tho balance of a debt which it had been proved defendant had under taken to be responsible for, and to consider the summons to be for tho original promissory note, on account of which plaintiff had already received judgment from the Court against Worsley; they therefore gave judgment for defendant with costs.