Feilding R. M. Court.

Feilding Star, Volume VI, Issue 50, 9 October 1884, Page 2

Feilding R. M. Court.

Wednesday, October Bth, 1884. (Before R>W«^E»«t., K.M.) FAILING TO COSTBIBXTTB. Matthew Murray, of fillerslie, Martoji, was charged by Mary Aria Crook, of Feilding, that bein-j the father of an illegitimate female child* I bora on the 13th of Fehruary, 1884), of which the complainant was the mother, he had tailed and refused to contribute towards the support of the said child, contrary to the statute in such case made and provided. ' Mr Staite appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Esarn for defendant; who pleaded not guilty. All witnesses in the ease were ordered out of court. Mr Staite said that unfortunately the most important witness for the plaintiff was rery ill in bed, and he was afraid* he would not be able to conclude the case that day, and asked for an adjournment. He stated what the evidence of the absent witness would be. Mr Esam objected to an adjournment, giving hia grounds for such an objection, which he founded* on the law of evidence, and he would object to the evidence of the witness when produced. His Worship questioned whether such evidence as that referred to by Mr Staite could be admitted. Mr Staite said he dare rioti in " the absence of the witness, go on with the case, relying upon 'the other evidence of the witnesses alone, and strongly' urged for an adjournment, to which Mr E»ain as strongly objected. After further argument from counsel the case was order to be adjourned till next Court day at 2 o'clock, the question of costs to be reserved. ALLEGED PEBJUBY. Maurice K. Samuel, proprietor of the Awahuri Hotel, was charged on tfie information of William Southworth, of Feilding, as follows : — That the said VI . K. Samuel did on the 29th of September* 1884, in a judicial proceeding at Feilding before Messrs. Sherwill and Leth bridge, Justices of the Peace (such judicial proceeding being an- information laid by the police under the Licensing Acts), falsely r wickedly and corruptly swear that he did not on the 18th of September, 1884, at Awahuri, refuse to supply William South worth with tea, that William South, worth never asked him for tea, and thai no one was in the bar when William Southworth asked for a shake-down, the same being an indictable offence. Mr Staite appeared for the informant, and Mr Prior for the defendant South' worth did not appear, and Mr Staite said his client had 1- ft the district and he had consequently no evidence to offer. Mr Prior stated how the action had originated out of a previous proceeding, and asked that Mr Samuel might be allowed to make a statement in defence of his own reputation, or at any rate that the case should be dismissed with coats. His Worship said he had no power tb> to award costs. Case dismissed. ASSAULT AKD THBBATKKIITO. William Higgins, of FeiJdmg, chairgej Thomas Looney, of Woodville, with unlawfully assaulting him. and chasing him with a knife and saying " I'll lay a wateb on you, and I'll put « set oa your life, if I get fifteen yean fur i V wherefore complainant was afraid- defendant might do him grevoas bodily harm, and sought to have him bound over to keep the peace. The defendant did not appear but was represented by Mr Prior. Mr Staite appeared for the informant who deposed as follows: — On the 26tf» of Sept. was sent by Mr Cottrell to serve a judgment snnunon* on defendant - r went to hii house bat he would not take the summons ; threw it at him, and it hit him in the breast; walked outride the house, and defendant and some others, who were there ran after him ; next morning was chopping wood, and defendant came- up to bim with a billhook i» bin nfi;.u holding it in a threatening manner toward* htm, using the language- used in the information. . Cross-examined > Was afraid defendant might even come from Woodville to carry out bis throats. Eobert Corkery, a lad deposed to seeing defendant run after complainant with a billhook, but did not hear anjr threats. His Worship failed to dee that com* plainant was in any danger, and he did not feel justified in, binding him. The charge would therefore be dismiss* ed withont costs. The court then adjourned;. CIVIL CASES. E. J. Cottrell v Thos Looney. Judgment summons for £13 Os lOd. Mr Staite appeared for. plaintiff and Mr Prior f>r defendant. A dispute arose about the delivery of the summons, which Mr Staite held had been properly delivered. - Wm. Higgins, a youth, swore to the delivery of the summon? at defendant's house. He would not take it, but witness threw it at at him, and hit him in the breast with it. [Witness here made an affidavit of the delivery.} The defendant did no£appear. The amount to be paid fo7thwitti.-.or JjjT^ days in Napier .gaol. • :..: E. J. Cottrell v Charles Gray. -Judgment summons for £5 13s 3d. Mr Staite for plaintiff. Defendant being ill in Wanganui Hospital, the case was adjourned for three months by order of the Court. D. K. Lowers v Doreen. Claim for £5 on dishonored- promissory note. M.r Prior tor plaintiff, and Mr Staite tor defendant. "Plamtiff. examined by Mr Staite, gave evidence explanatory of the circum»timces under which the note was signed by dei fendant. It was given as a consideration for the plaintiff's promise of forbearance in opposing defendant's discharge in bankruptcy. - Mr Prior quoted authority and precedents to show that such considerations were admissible and legal. , Mr Staite took, exception Ao jMr Prior quotingjtuee© authorities so volusijnoubly,

Bot%S WowKjTiSfflSwaa perfecTJyTS order. Mr Staite concluded by contending Out tier* wiu bo valid consideration Cor grounding the action. Mt Staite contended that the consideratioa was not an equitable one, and said hi* defence wax—" no consideration.** " Mr Prior farther quoted, and argued the validity of the claim, bat Hi* Wor*bip said he failed to see with, him, and must either five a nonsuit or an adjournment. Mr Staite aaid a most important principle w*s involved, and he asked for a nonsuit. Ultimately the case was adjoarned till ,uext sitting, eottnsel'a fee to be allowed. Prior and Sanditaads v Jones. —Claim £1 13 a for -legal charges and monej out of pocket in a judicial proceeding. Defended appeared and disputed the claim, although he admitted having put - the case referred to into the hands of the plaintiff*. W. A. Saadilands was pat into the bot, and proved the claim, which was ordered to be paid with costs. J. VV. Eade v K. A. Eskthon.— Claim £4 10s for goods supplied. Mr Prior fo r plaintiff and Mr Staite for defendant. Plaintiff deposed? Was a cabinet - maker trading i« Feilding; defendant came and asked to be supplied with some, furniture, for which defendant's wite Would pay on her return from Wanganui; afterwards asked witness to take a set of harness for £4; this was agreed to on consideration that if the claim for furniture was paid by a certain date the harness should be returned, but the money was not paid, and the present claim for the furniture was still unsatisfied. Cross examined : The foods were hired to defendant till Ist July, when they were to be paid for. [Mr SUite here produced a document of the bailment of the goods till the date mentioned and contended there was no absolute sale]. Cross • examination continued: The goods were defendant's when he had paid for them, but they were witness's till paid for; bad used the harness since the action, and had it repaired, as he considered it his own ; the appropriation was after the Ist July; defendant did not tell witness he would make him pay for having the harness cut and altered ; the harness had not been cut but had simply had a breeching put on ; was not prepared to return the harness if the furniture was returned. Re-examined: Defendant had never disputed the balance till witness said he couldn't wait any longer; hadn't asked for the return of furniture. This closed the evidence for plaintiff. Mr. Staite still contended that the transaction was simply a hire, and not a male, and he applied for a nonsuit. Mr Prior held that the document referred to, as well as the. admissions of defendant afterwards, clearly Implied a sale, and he asked for 'a judgment for plaintiff. : His Worship held the goods wen to be considered as purchased if kept attera certain date, knd he could not therefore give a nonsuit. The. defendant was then examined: Plaintiff proposed that he should hire the goods, and offered to take the harness as security ; it was not an absolute sale, and witness never bought the goods, and was prepared to return them. Cross-examined : Had not bought the goods, although he had offered to pay for them/ believed he was either to pay the ' hire or the value of the goods by the Ist July. By the Bench: Certainly did not understand that he would have to pay for the purchase of the goods, but only for the hire. William Eskiisbn, son of defendant, gave evidence of a conversation between the parties, in which he said plaintiff offered to return the harness if the furniture was returned. Mr Prior addressed the court and subin tted that if the transaction was one of hire merely, some terms and charges for inch hire would have been mentioned, whereas there were no figures used except as regarded the prices of, .the articles. This and other circumstances he held to be plain evidence that a sale and purchase were intended by the parties, and he asked for a judgment for plaintiff. There being a cross action to be heard, His Worship said he- would prefer to hear that before giving judgment. Eskilion vEade.— Claim UIO for alleged damages and losses sustained by retention of a set of harness. ;Mr Staite for plaintiff and Mr Prior for defendant. Plaintiff deposed to leafing the har« ness with defendant as security for certain furniture received from him ; sixdays afterwards receded bill (produced) for balance' of account, and didn't .understand it, oxcept that defendant had converted the harness to, his own use; defendant admitted having altered the harness was< worth £7, and he claimed £3 for the convertaon by the plaintiff and consequent loss to himself. Cross-examined : Did not ask defendant to purchase the harness ; defendant Mid heurould charge him according to the usage of the things, but no price was mentioned. ' • • . Defendant examined by Mr Staite adkb mitted taking the harness as security; and converting to his own use on July tnd, : as it was a£r»*d he should keep it if the goods were not paid for by Ist. £The rest of the witness's evidence waa similar to that given in the proceeding ease.] By Mr Prior: Had not the slightest doubt as to what he had said being the true facts of the case). •■.-.. : ' William Kakilson, plaintiff's son repeated substantially his evidence in the first case. - . - - ■ . • Both counsel having addressed the court. His Worship said; it was most unfortunate that the evidence was so conflicting. He, thought the most just way of settling the two cases would be tononsait both parties with costs. He would also advise a return of the article* by each party respectively. Judgment entered for. nonsuit in each ease with costs.