Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume V, Issue 18, 14 February 1884, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court

» Wednespat, Febbuaby 13th, 1884. (Before li. Ward, Esq., R.M.) CIVIL CASES. Halcombe and Sherwill v G. A Jacksoo. — Judgment summons for £39 17s lOd. Mr Hawkins for plaintiff*. The defendant, whe made an affirmation in lieu of an oath, was pnt through a thoroughly searching examination as to his position and circumstances, and gave evidence as to his earnings, proceeds of the sale of land, stock, Ac, but positively refused to state the value of his property, on which there was a mortgage of £550In reply to the Bench, had applied, for a further mortgage without success; had not refused an offer forDureha*e. Thomas Price deposed as to negotiating with defendant for the rental of his land ~^ , at Bunnythorpe fqr £6**>a year, but that he had refused to take it ; was still prepared to become a tenant, at that amount. L. G. West, land and commission agent, deposed as to his knowledge of the prop* erty in question, and bis opinion was that it was worth about £7 per acre. H L. Sherwill. one of the plaintiffs*,, deposed as to his knowledge of the land, which he considered honestly worth £6 per acre ; it originally cost £3 from the B. A C. A. Corporation, and it was now all felled and in grass. Defendant then made a statement, and produced a property tax valuation paper, which showed the taxable valne to be £520. He pleaded having a large family te support, and asked for time. Mr Hawkins offered defendant to take a second mortgage by plaintiffs on the property to secure the payment of tk* debt in 12 mouths. ' Ultimately the : plaintiffs agreed to aa order for tbe money to be paid at the rate of £5 per month, the first payment to be made on the 12th of March next, in default of either payment one month's imprisonment. . . £ J. Cottrell v J. Laing.— Judgment suDimons for £2 14s 3d. .No appearance of defendant, who had paid £2. and was ordered to pay the balance forthwith or in default two day's imprisonment. D R. Lewers v Dick. Claim £17 3s lid. Mr Trior for plaintiff.- Case adjourned, as there was no proof of service before the Court. . :i G. Crichton v A. J. S. Seatton.— Claim £1() 5s 4d. No appearance of defendant. Plaintiff proved the claim, and judgment, was given for amount and costs. S. Svensden v A. Paton, of Ashurst.— Claim £2 2s Gd. No appearance ef defendant. Judgment for plaintiff and and costs Penberthy v T. Sexton.— Cl*im £3 16s lOd, on balance of dishonored promissory vote. Judgment for plaintiff with costs. Lewers v Hadfield. -Claim £36 4* Id. Mr Prior for plaintiff. No appearance of defendant, J. Bo*l, assistant of plain*tifl proved the claim, and judgment was given for amount and cost*. , F.J Rowley v W Crawford.— Claim £5 on balance of dishonored promissory note. No appearance .of. 7 defendant. Judgment tor plaintiff and cosis W. G. Haybittle v W. Whisker. - Claim £13 Os 3d. Mr Prior for plain iff, .md Mr Staite for defendant, who did not dispute the claim, and judgfnept was given for plaintiff and cosbs Crichton v Kenny.— Claim £6 9s 9d. No appearance of defendant, who had «ent a letter to the Court, offering to pay £1 per month. Judgment witii cants for plaintiff, who retu.-ted defendant's offer. F. J. Rowley v £. Cuff.— Claim £2 14s Bd. Mr Prior for plaintiff. Ho appearance. The claim had arisen had arisen from the plaintiff having purchased the book debts from Mr Nash, -deceased, evidence of which was given, snd judgment was given for plaintiffs with costs. Crichton v James Harvey.— Claim for C 3 14s 2d. No appearance of defendant. J udgment for plaintiff and costs.' Penberthy v Llewellyn.— Claim £7 7s. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff and costs. . .._, M. Keen v W. A. Lightbourne. — Claim £3 lis. Mr Prior for defendant, whe had put in a set off. Defendant deposed that he was a registered medical' practitioner^- residing ia leilding ; was called to attend 'plaintiff's wife, who had • sustained *, ampere cut across the forehead ; attended four times, and the sum of three guineas, according to account, was a fair, and reasonable charge. Constable Price, deposed to being present when Dr Lightbourne /was rendering service to Mrs Keen, who was wounded in the head. Mrs Keen deposed that the deetor came to see her twice, and she went once to his house, when he took the stitches from the wound. After looking at the defendant's daj. book. His Worship said he should allow two guineas for the doctor's attendance, and give judgment for £1 9s and costs. B. Warner v H. Adsett.-Claim £14 13s 6d, for labor, Ac. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff, and Mr Perkins for defendant, who disputed the quality of the work done. W. Warner deposed that he construe* ted 66 chains of tramway tor defendant ; no objection was raised till he bad left the work about 29 days; was not supposed to do the ballasting; defendant had passed the work, and paid £12 on it. Cross-examined: Did not offer. Baker £6 to pnt the work ih order; defendant did not from time lo time call his attention to the work, and say it wouldn't do, and did not ray he wouldn't paly him ;' constructed, the tram in a proper and workmanlike manner. For the defence, L. G.-Wdsf deposed that he was ato ne time part-4>»n<T and I working manager of the mill helonu^ng to.' I defendant; knew the 'tr/ua inl^c^ttoo,' and 'had seen the work done by. plaintiff.

£ Witness here described the work, and the inefficient manner in which about 30 chains of it had been done.] The sleepen were far too small, and the number used per chain were deficient; to reconstruct the tram would cost about 10s per chain. Cross-examined : Did not see the tram till after it had been used ; measured it by step, which he could do very accurately ; the distance of some of the sleepers were sft 6in instead of 3ft which was the proper distance ; thought there was more than 35 chains of the tram badly done. Henry Adsett, defendant, gave evidence as to giving plaintiff an order to construct a tram according to agreement and specifications ; went several times to plaintiff and called his attention to the bad work, and told him it would not do ; told plaintiff he wouldn't pay for it ; would cost about 8s per chain to put it in working order; could not use the tram properly till it was put right ; plaintiff promised to re-do the work, but instead of doing so went and took the present action. Tn his cross-examination witness gave further evidence as to the badness of the work, and his complaining to plaintiff . about it. W. L. Bailey, sawmiller at Tt>onui, deposed as to examining the tramway at Mr Adsett's request, and gave corroborative evidence as to the sma-lness of the sleepers, their long distance apart, the general ba.i quality of the work in ques- j tion, and the probable cost of putting in proper order. Bis cross-examination elicited similar evidence to that of the previous witness. Charles Baker deposed as to being asked by plaintiff if the tram could be put right for £5 per chain, and refusing to give an opinion. This closed the evidence, and the plaintiff was nonsuited with costs for defendant. Margaret Johnson v James Vile and William Symonds. Claim £3, for alleged damage by dogß to her pigs at Halcombe. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff and Mr fendants. Plaintiff made a long statement in which she described the attack made by defendants' do#s ou her pig, and the damage done by the former to the latter. Cross-examined : Had never called the dogs to assist driving her cmws, and had never set her own dog on her pigs. Alfred West gave evi.ience for plaintiff. Jam s Vile, one of the defendants, -deposed as to being called by plaintiff to see the pig, and to sewing up its wounds; plaintiff said nothing to witness at the time as fo how the damage was done, but in three days came and told him it was his dog that did it. W. Symonds, the other defendant, waa examined, but boih witnesses denied any responsibility in the matter. Plaintiff nonsuited without costs. John Whittle v W. Whisker.— Claim ■£67 Is on dishonored promissory note. Mr Prior for plaintiff and Air Staite for defendant, who produced a receipt for £10, which he had paid into the Bank of Australasia to the credit of the plaintiff. Judgment for the claim was oonsenleil to. less the above amount, with costs, 14 days allowed for payment. Maunder and .VlcKelvie (trustees of Bo we & Sons' assigned estate), v Tapita and Hori Unpa. At a recent sitting of the court at Bulls plaintiffs obtained judgment for £61. Mr . Hawkins for defendaut, at the next sitting moved for a re-hearing, on the ground that the P.N. sued on hid been given on the faith that "Rowe and Sons would supply further tin b r to ihe value of £19, which had not been done. In reply to the P.M., Mr Esam, for plaintiffs, stated that he was instructed his clients had delivery notes duly signed for all the timber in respect of which the P.N. was.given. The R.M. ordered the case to be reheard at Feilding, defendant to pay the costs of the former hearing, £6. '• The case was called at the last sitting ... of the court here, but was adjourned till . yesterday. Mr Esam again appeared for plaintiffs, Mr Perkins for Tapita, and Mr W. B. Hawkins for Hori TJripa. -Thomas Bowe, who made a declaration in; lieu of an oath, was examined at great . length hy Mr Perkins, and gave evidence as to his bring formerly one of the firm - of Bowe and Sons, sawmillers, at Cnrnar- ' von, and delivering a certain quantity of timber to defendants in 1880. A large number of order-sheets, delivery notes, bills, and other documents were produced and examined, but the evidence adduced had reference chiefly to details, which were of little public interest. Witness . was cross-examined by Mr Bsam, re-examined on seyeral points by Mr Perkins, and again asked several questions by V' r Esam. Charles Bull, sawmiller, at A' -rangi, deposed as to Bowe's men bringing several lots of timber to h s mill to be dressed, and delivering it to Tapita on behalf of Bowe. Cross-examined : Had no reason to doubt that the , timber was delivered According to order. Tapita was here called, and gave her evidence through Mr Booth, interpreter. She was examined at considerable length but refused to state positively thnt certain signatures produced were in her own handwriting. Cross - examined : V. itness acknowledged having signed a P.N. for £30 at Awahuri for Bowe ; signed one, and theß another paper was given her to sign ; it night have been the same one turned over; both signatures to I.N. produced, one on each side, were in her own hand writing. Hori -Unpa was next examined, who deposed having remembered giving an order for timber to. Bowe and Sons ; did *'. not get all the timber for his house from ' them, but some of it came from Bull's dill; some of the timber ordered he never got at all. Witness was closely cross-examined on matters of -detail. The case was ultimately adjourned tc Marton, for the evidence of anothei ■■•- witness. Pope and Pearson v John McDonald, Mr Warburton for plaintiffs. . This was an action for the possession of jcertain premises, and the case was ""^ "Brought before -the- court last court day ; gad adjourned for further evidence. ; r. - Mr Warburton read a number of quota '•:•-■ turns* from legal authorities bearing or •j;:- thr subject df mortgages, &cf ; K*dox,;Clerk of the Local Boarc *^ tonkins, deposed as ctp his knowledge

of both defendant and plaintiffs takin] i possession of the property in question. F. Pope, one of the plaintifEs ani mortgage3s of the property, gave evidenc* ax to their cliim to possession of tht same. Order was given for power to tak< possession within 14 days, the defendan to pay the costs of the order, bonds i necessary to be entered into by plaintiff! fwr the sum of £150. The court then adjourned.