Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume VI, Issue 102, 12 February 1885, Page 3

Feilding R.M. Court

Wednesday, Februaby 11, 1885

(Before R. Ward, Esq., R:M.,) Constable Meehan applied for ar order to be made in the case of the two chfldren of James White, whom he had deserted. The Constable said the father had not been arrested sc far as he Tcnew,-and the chUdren had no means of support. It was ordered that the children be sent to an Industrial School tUI they were 15 yeara °* a £ e * ™ • Fraser Bros v Himiona — Claim, £1 2s 7d.- Judgment for plaintiff and costs, to be paid within one week. Joseph Smith v Koroßenao— Claim, £4. Open judgment for plaintiff and costs. F. Thorbj v R. Webb— Claim, £13 12s for rent for land, and appUcation f or re-possession. Mr Prior for plaintife^. Defendant explained that he had re-let the land, and the sub-tenant had not paid his rent ; witness was prepared to give up possession if his tenant did so. His Worship said he could not give an order for re-possession on defendant and advised plaintiff's soUcitor to accept an order for rent merely. Mr Prior submitted that nothing was mentioned about sub-tenants in the Act, and he could not recognise a third party in the affair. He con-tended-that the proceedings against the defendant were perfectly in order. His Worship on re-consulting the Act thought he had power to make an order to take effect within a reason able time. Order made for payment of claim and re-possession within 15 days from date. Lewers v Grantham. — Judgment summons for £3 13s. Adjourned for one month. Christopher Brown v R. Loudon— Claim, £8 6s 2£d for aUeged errors in an account for stock taken over by plaintiff from defendant. The errors were said to be in the calculations and measurements.

Mr Staite appeared for plaintiff, and defendant conducted his own case.

The defence was that the errors were only alleged, that certain articles were in stock which were never listed, but that defendant had no opportunity of ascertaining, that the award was made in writing for a gross amount, and it was for a sum beyond the jurisdiction of the court, and that the agreement was subject to the valuer's award, which was to be final. Plaintiff deposed to purchasing the stock of defendant by telegram, and taking possession on the 17th Sept. last, it was taken on the honor of defendant as a business man; found errors in measurement the very first day ; all errors and omissions were to he aUowed for ; would swear the list of errors (produced) was a correct one; defendant always promised to correct them or give a cheque for any claim on him for plaintiff. [At this stage it was agreed that the al'eged errors of quantities be struck out, and the case proceed on the alleged miscalculations, with the understanding that certain credits given to plaintiff be also disallowed. The list of items in the claim was then altered accordingly. W. A. Sandilands deposed to preparing an agreement for the parties as per the award of the arbitrators (document produced). Had hot seen the stock book in connection with preparing the deed. John Prior, partner of the former witness, gave similar evidence. Thomas Munro, storekeeper of Bulls, deposed to being one of the awarders withMr Bush, of Wanganui ; the book produced was the one they used in making the award. At thia stage defendant said he had since engaged Mr Goodbehere to conduct his case. . Mr Goodbehere contended, and cite 1 authority that the purpose *of an award was to settle all disputes, and must be-final, and that therefore the plaintiff conld have no claim. Mr Staite said the defence was a disreputable one, that the court had nothing whatever to do with the matter of the award. It was most absurd to say the court had no jurisdiction in rectifying errors such as those shown. The claim was based on the mis-calculations in the stock, and the plaintiff was fairly entitled to a judgment. His Worship said he could not review the case of the award, but thought it was within his power to adjudicate on the amount of the alleged errors. The difference between the two partifcs he made to be £2 15s 3d, and he would give ■judgment "for that amount and costs. Mr Loudon afterwards applied for proceedings to be stayed, in order that a point of jurisdiction may be argued before a Judge of the Supreme Court in Chambers. The Court then adjourned.