LOWER COURT.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1916, 26 November 1913, Page 10

LOWER COURT.

THE PONY & THE BOGUS MPT. STRANGE STATEMENTS. THE STORY OF AX UNUSUAL DEAIi Extraordinary statements were made in the Magistrate's Com! yesterday in a case in which Charles James i'oppleton sued John Poppieton for the return of a pony stallion, or for £50. Mr. Kvasis, S.M., was on the iSeiK'b. Mr. J. M'Grath appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. E. J. Fitzgiblion for the defendant. The litigants, though of similar name, are not relations. C. J. Poppleton's claim was to the effect that 011 June 5, 1912, he bought the pony from John i'oppletou for £8, and that on October 28 of this year, defendant entered the stable and took the poiiv away. 1 Defendant llad refused to return the pony, and hence the claim. Plaintiff stated in evidence that he actually gave .£'3 for the horse, bu£ 'defendant had signed a statement that he had received £22. This, he said, was dosio at the suggestion of the defendant v.h-o intimated that if ever plaintiff wanted to sell th* pony he cotiid get more j'or it in consequence of the receipt. Mr. Fitzgibbon: When you got that receipt a balance of £-1 was paid, you Defendant: Yes. .• Where?---"I11 the bottle department of Mr. Nidd's hotel." Did you borrow £('< from Mr. Nidd that night?—" No." Did you borrow anything from hi!n? —"£4." Did yon not meet the plaintiff on,the street and tell him.that yen knew where yon could get some money and ask him io go with you to Mr. Nidd's,. and say that if lie would make out that supposed receipt. Mr. Nidd would lend you something?—" No." | What other names liavo you gono under?—" None." Have yon ever gone by the name of ■ Banks?—" No." j . .Baker?—" Mo." Ever been known as Cotton? —"Mo." Nor Le Mcssary—"No." Have you ever been approached by the. police in connection Mr. M'Gvaih said that this lino of cros'j-examinaticn was wrong unless counsel for the defence was going to call evidence to the eifcct suggested. • Tho Magistrate said that if evidence was not called the witness's answers would stand undisputed. Mr. Fit.zgibbon (proceeding): You know Detective Abbott. Now weren't you warned off a racecourse as a racecourse guessor? Plaintiff: "No, not as ?. guesser." How, then ? —"1 was asked to leave tho course, and l did so." Have you ever been, approached by the police, and have you ever made a statement to tho effect that you kept this horse because it would prevent your being bad up on the vag?—"No." Plaintilf said that he had heard that ho was put off the racccourso in consequence of something that defendant had said after he (defendant) took the horso from the stable in Ellice Street, r Mr. 1 itzgibbon: But tho races werek'lore he took tho horse. A., 'f'. 31' William, stable-keener, deposed that for stud purposes tile pouv would liot be dear at £40 or £50.. Ho would not, however, give that much for it to keep st in Wellington.; i Defendant'was-then called. He swore that he had'signed a wrong receipt, and had sir.ee been informed that "lie had done a dangerous tiling. Ho declared that plaintiff had asked liim for the receipt for the purnoso of getting money from Mr..Nidd. lie also stated that since lie was a boy he had known plaintiff by several names. , ..iH,'? °-'clock the case was adjourned till tins aUernoou. MOTOR, it- TP AM. .The claim of Lyon and Co. against tho Wellington City Corporation for £10 10s. as damages caused to one of their drivers ami a motor-car with which a tramcar collided,: was reheard, it had previously been heard by tho late Dr. .U'Artiiur. The plaintiffs alleged negligence on tho part of the driver of iho tramcar. Mr. T. M. A\ ilf ore! appeared for tho plaintiff, and Mr. J. O'Shea for the corporation. Mr. Jivaiis, S.M., found in favour of tho plaintiff for the amount claimed. I UNDEFENDED CASES. In tho following cases Mr. Evaiiii, S.M., entered judgment for the plaintiffs by default: — W. H. Suckling v. TJioma:- A. Marshall, £7 125., and costs 16s. 6d.: Clsas. Eegg and Co. v. Gub. Kreeger, £19 16s. ud., and £1 10s. Cd.; George and Kessloy, Ltd., v. Allan X. Kennedy. £42 li.'s. J Id., and £4 145.; Dunlop Rubber Company v. Stuart M. Haird, costs only, £2 25.; W. L. Jcnness v. F. M. Keiuiey, costs only, 75.; A. and T. Burt, Ltd., v. Thomas \Y. Francis, £24 Is., and £2 145.; Wellington Furniture 'l'raclo Workers' Union v. Walter D, Sto:k, 18s., and 55.; Soft Goods Workers' Union v. Francis E. Leydon, £1 145., and os.; J. Chessman v. C. B. Carpenter, £.3 18s. lid., and 13s.City Corporation v. George N. Gallate, £25 ISs. 10d., and £1 35.: and Laery and Co., Ltd., v. H. Wylie, costs only, 17s.