Feilding B.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume V, Issue 36, 27 March 1884, Page 2

Feilding B.M. Court

(Before K. Ward, Esq., 8.M.) WEDNBBDAY, MARCH, ?; SJI!H, 1884. ; CIVIL CASEB;~~' Lewers v Hadfield.^CJaini £40 12s Id. No appearance of either" party. Case struck out. • -..^ Penberthy t Llow# Iyn^g^m £8 13». No appearance of either party. Case struck out. *-> ._- '-^ J. Jackson v. J. Lain?. — Claim £7 11s 6d, Case adjourned till vex» siuingg>of the court on the application of solicitor for plaintiff. : ' „ " ,\~ :/. " Smith t Worsfold —Claim £1 Hi. No appearance of either partyr^ase struck out. ..- : '■. Nelson v Bopeha. — Claim- £5 13s. -'-■■- Judgment for plaintiff with costgiartfl solicitor's fee. . : : ■ ■.-•-■• •«. •«-. Lewers v Morris.— -Claim £23 I]»8d. Mr Prior appeared for plaintiff 'and-Mr Hawkins for. defendant/ : . ■■. Mary Ann Morris deposed : She was the wife of defendant ; knew of a P.N., £10 19s 2d ; was preSeW 'whe^ iT wa» paid about three years ' agi)y in. JBBJ ; it was paid to Mr LeWpirs j MbrriiVw** it; believed it was in notes and -.silver*;- was positire she was there and saw the money paid ; Mr Lewers said they had, .better clear up the P.N. and, leave) the store bill ; Mr Taylor was also* prpsent ; always went orer the accponCs ; about 15 months agu Mr Lewees said) the debt did not exceed £5; and they might as well work it out ; there wast' no receipt given for the nionry ; there was something said about a receipt ; Mr Taylor did not say

anything. < . •» Cross-examined : Mr Taylor was not serving customers; be must have r se«n what took place and heard the conTeraation ; witness was not in the habit ~ f paying »he accounts ; did not remember the day of the week or of the month ; it was in February, 1881 ; remembered this date because they raised -some money oa mortgage on the house and land where ! they are now living; the money was^r*' rowed from Earl Denbigh,, througbbWlocal agents. ; ;- ?

James Dear was called upon topror* paj ment of £2 13s. [.This item was ad> ' mitted.] ' '' '■' : ' r ' Wm. Taylor deposed r He bad formerly been in the employ of Mr Lewers ; kneirc ; nothing about the transaction. ' ■ •■■■;• ! James Morris deposed : J Out btHh»- ' money he received on, mortgage ii^. paid the £10 ]9s 2d. CTlie,.' solicitor for theplaintiff here admitted that be could not produce the'P.N/J Moore bad just left ■ when the payment was made.'' ' Mr Boal deposed : He wW»' now in theemploy of Mr Lewers ; hod asked Morris to pay the account ; no particular item was mentioned ; he mentioned a convers- ' ation with Mr Lewers., D. R. Lewers deposed: Morris had been dealing with him fi»r some lime ; & P.N. for £10 19». 2d camp due in February, 1880;' had no recollection of I hi* money being paid ;• if .this had been done) it would have appeared l in the day book ; was in Bulls on Febrdary 23rd, 1880; in February, 1881, still had the KulJk estabii.shiuent; no donbt if the money had been paid he would have remembered it ; the bill fell da» on the 23ni February; cannot remember the money having been paid ; ail moneys received in the Feilding store were sent to Bulls ; a whole lot of vouchers were lost during the transportirii! of goods, Ac, from Balls to Feilding; r in all cases where money was paid he gftTjß; an acknowledgement, „: ; ; : ; c. Cross-examined.: There exists nothing to recall this payment to his memory. \ 77 His Worship said jhot the evidence was very conflicting. Judgment for plaintiff for.jElOOs 6d,allowance>for^>laia-^ tiff costs 235, and coonsej*' fee -figs, costs for witnesses not allowed. * '-■ - - - - Jones t Williams.^iClaim £5, valatof a dog shot by defendant John Jones deposed : He wan a labor»r| living at Taonui; was the owner ofja dojf/his name was Don but he went by- the l " name of Pepper ; the (fog was. useful for everything, he would do anything be was ' (old to do; Williams was 'in the h.abit of- - using the dog, with the permission of pjaintiff ; generally bad the dog tied np ; \\ illiams never complairtieii of tlie being a nuisance ; the dog was not Ticious; Williams had offerei' to l th'e dog y would not have Darted with the rdog |fcr r , money; could have sold him for ip^^ t Cross-examined : The/dog] was inj-t^©^^ yard ; would not , belieVe ; tha,t the; 'fag.}/: bit a child; Williams; had not askedhim,/: to take away the dog^; the dog [was not. / registered as be did not know that Mr :; Bray was the collector.". n -••■-; -: Henry Williams deposed : :He knew :7 Jones' dog, and xhot it becNUse it bit « (^ child; the dog snatcheda bit oi bread and butter out of the child's hand; • there ' ''- were three dogs; fired info the 1 lot; did f : ; not want to shoot Jones' dog; did not r know he bad done so nntiV Mondiy or- ; Tuesday ; the child Was bitten slightly ; v never offered to.- buy the , t dogV : hyad>attd;: J?*. 6 ' it once to get in builocks ; had a. dog of '.v •! his o«n at the time/and; shot. her. :ft>o. . . ., Charles Eoe deposed :, He was an ho^el keeper in Feilding; knew the dog belonging to Jones; gave Jones the dog when a' ■■ np ; could not say what the value of the '■ dog wns. Mr Staitel asked for a nonßuit, which was granted, with counsel's fee 21 s. * •" r Me nd» v Beaufort . — Claim £2. Verdict for plantifE and costs, 6s. Ch»rles< Bray, collector for the Qrona J pounty, t J. Bniek?— Claim £8 6s lOd./l Judgment for plaintiff and costs. The Court then adjourned.

"Well. madam, hdw iis.ynnr hnslnrndr"' *' No better, doctor/ "Were th»« leeches admipisterediasl direrJedP,*' KWett, only !^ three as youdirected— l bad to fry the rest before he'd take 'em." - Tw;O,x>nejrirrried;ii mericainai went to th&'£ : T London Lyceum -to -applaud Mnry-Ander-. son by slapping their riiniiining handY 7." together. ■• ■■■ ■ •■■-.;-. ' ' '■ ■■ '■ ?'■ ■' ' ;: '-' >■'