Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume XII, Issue 25, 14 August 1890, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court

«. Wednesday, 13th August, 1890. (Before Mr Brabant, R.M.) G. Allerby v N. A. Boos.— Claim £2 2s. Mr Prior for plaintiff. No appearance of defendant. Judgment by default for amount and 63 costs. S. J. Thompson v A. Bobertson. — ■ Claim £8 11s sd. Mr Prior for plaintiff. No appearance of defendant. Judgment by default for amount and costs 14s and solicitor's fee 21s. J. Fraser v R. Drury.— Claim £5 0s 6d. Mr Prior, for defendant, asked for time, - . and offered to pay £1 per month, to which plaintiff consented, first payment to be within 14 days. Judgment accordingly with costs. Stevens and Gorton y Tapeta Waitina. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff. Claim £62 13s 4d, which was admitted by defendant, who asked for two months Co settle. Judgment accordingly with costs and solicitor's fee. J. Saunders v H. Cameron. — Claim £38 9s. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff. It appeared the defendant had been adjudicated a bankrupt, and the case was accordingly struck out. Keenan and Arkhurty v J. Scrimgeour. —Claim £18 10s. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff. No appearance of defendant. Judgment by default for plaintiff with costs and solicitor's fee 21s. Shaw-Perrett v C. H. Ruthven. — Claim £10. Mr Prior for plaintiff, and Mr Sandilandß for defendant. Mr Prior asked for an adjournment on the alleged ground of the plaintiff's unavoidable absence. To this Mr Sandilands objected. Ultimately it was arranged to adjourn the case till next court-day. W. Light v D. E. Amesbury. — Judgment summons for £4 7s 6d. The defendant appeared, and produced a letter showing that he expected money from England. Adjourned till next court-day. T. R. Taylor v Stephen Waitera.--Judgment summons for £16 19s 6d. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff. No appearance of defendant. Judgment by default, to bepaid within 14 days, or 19 days in "Wanganui Gaol. T. R. Taylor v Aperhama. — Judgment summons for £4 19s 4d. Mr Sandilandsfor plaintiff. No appearance of defendant. To be paid within 14 days, or 9 daya imprisonment. I. Churcher v R. B. Fearon. — Claim £2 15s. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff, and Mr Prior for defendant. This was an application for a re-hearing on the alleged ground that there were some further important evidence forthcoming on behalf of the defendant. Re-hearing granted, to» take place on 29th August, on condition that £1 16s be paid within a week, otherwise execution may take place with costs. J. B. Pybus v Mary Tuck.— Claim £64s. Mr Prior for plaintiff, and Mr Sandilands for defendant. Tue claim was for the value of some articles which were not entered in the valuation list, and not paid for, though in the present possession and use of the defendant, who had taken over the Halcombe Hotel from the plaintiff. It was contended for the plaintiff that the articles should either be paid for or returned, and for the defendant that they were included in the goods yalued and taken over. John B. Pybus, formerly proprietor of the Halcombe Hotel gave eyidence relative to the articles in dispute, and the various conversations between himself and the defendant and her manager about them. Witness was very closely and lengthily cross-examined. A. E. Dowsell, manager for the defendant, and who acted as valuer on the occasion of the transfer, gave his version of what took place, and was cross-examined at considerable length. Mr Sandilands contended there was not sufficient evidence of the claim, and that the goods mentioned were included in the " etceteras" mentioned in the agreement, which were properly belongings of the hotel, which being the case, the question involved the whole amount of the valuation, and was therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the court. Mr Prior submitted the improbability of including the articles in dispute in the- " etceteras " when goods of very much smaller value were particularised in the agreement. He urged for an adjournment for the evidence of the solicitor as to what took place and offered to pay the costs of the adjournment. Mr Sandilands objected to the case being adjourned. Mr Prior asked for a nonsuit. Nonsuited accordingly with costs. W. Triable v W. Paippen.— Claim £11 7s 6d. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff, and Mr Prior for defendant. The amount claimed was the deficiency on the sale of a horse, alleged to be purchased by the defendant at plaintiff'e horse fair at Feilding on the 31st May last. It appeared that defendant declined to acknowledge the purchase, and the horse was afterwards sold at the risk of defendant at another sale. A. Mclndoe, proprietor of livery stables at Marton, deposed to defendant buying a draught horse for £12 or £13 at Mr Trimble's sale at Feilding. Cross-examined : Considered defendant quite sober at the sale ; thought it was & broken down horse ; didn't remember hearing the conditions of sale read ; did'nt hear defendant ask for a trial of the horse till after the sale ; had not seen the horse since. Re-examined : Would'nt say the conditions of sale were not read ; did not think the horse was sold subject to a trial. By the Bench: Mr Trimble said he would not give a trial, but the owner might ; did'nt know if the conditions of sale were posted np^ W. Trimble deposed to beine an auctioneer, carrying on business in Feilding; (produced sale book used at the horse fair and read out the conditions as read on the day of the sale) ; the reserve price on the horse was £12, and the defendant bid up to £13 ; the description of the horse was " light bay, draught, staunch, and aged " ; defendant wanted witness, to give the horse a trial, which he declined to do, and defendant refused to acknowledge the purchase ; in consequence plaintiff had the horse sold by Messrs Stevens and Gorton at their sale for £2 2s 6d ; the horse had since been offered at auction and £12 refused for it. Cross-examined : Did not examine the horse ; pail the vendor the proceeds of the tale ; defendant was abusive, but not drunk ; saw him several times afterwards during the day, and he still persistently refused to accept the horse without a trial ; Mr Mclndoe, he believed, waß not present at the commencement of the sale. Re-examined : The vendor, Mr Simpson, had after the sale in witness' presence offered to give defendant a trial of the horse, saying he was everything the auctioneer said ; defendant said, " let the auctioneer put him in a dray and take him out" ; defendant had that morning offered to compromise by paying the sum of £5. C. Simpson, farmer, of Lee's line, near Feilding, the vendor of the horse, gave evidence as to the value of the horse, which was perfectly staunch, but aged; had been paid by the auctioneer the proceeds of She sale of the horse ; otherwise witness corroborated the eyidence of the auctioneer. _„ Norman Gorton, manager to Stevens and Gorton, auctioneers, proved the hors* ' being resold at one of their sales for j&s|

6d, and Mr Trimble having been paid this amount less commission ; it was not necessary or usual to give guarantees ol horses sold at auction. "W. Reading deposed to acting as clerk at the sale, and' taking the name of the defendant as purchaser at the time of bidding, making out the account, and delivering the same ; the conditions of the sale were read before it commenced. Mr Prior contended that the case was governed by the Statute of Frauds, which precluded the plaintiff suing in his own name, as he was only in the capacity of an agent, and not himself a third party. His Worship said plaintiff was no longer an agent after the sale was effected, and could then proceed iv his own name. Mr Sandilands cited cases to show that an auctioneer in such circumstances had a right of re-sale and of recovery for any deficiency or damages. His Worship said there was no doubt as to the facts, and as to the point of law raised he was satisfied as to the power of the auctioneer to sue. He thought the plaintiff should recover in this case. Mr Prior asked tor an appeal. Im this case His Worship said he should have to reserve judgment. Judgment reserved till next court-day. F. Beaumont v Mary Criohton. — Crichton.—Claim £1 9s. Mr Cooke for plaiutitf and Mr Sandilands for defendant. This was a rehearing of a case heard before Justices on Friday lest. The plain tifi stated he had supplied all the goods either to defendant or her children, and did not know her husband at all in the matter. Cross-examined: Had credited Mr Crichton in his books with firewood and gravel ; several items (mentioned) had also been debited to Mr Crichton ; several ac v v its (produced) were rendered to him; when Mrs Crichton or her children came for goods they were generally debited to the husband ; the amount defendant borrowed would cover her account for nursing witness' wife. Re-examined : Defendant had acknowledged on several occasions that the goods were supplied solely on her own account. Mr Sandilands pleaded for a nonsuit on the ground that the husband was respon- j sible for the debts of his wife. Mr Cooke submitted that defendant was liable as it had been shown she had a separate estate. His Worship held that in this case the husband was liable, as it was dear that he had been trusted and not his wife. Judgment for amount paid into court with costs. A. Morgan v Mary Crichton. — Claim JUS 16s 3d. Mr Cooke for plaintiff and Mr Sandilands for defendant. This was also a re -hearing, which was similar in substance to the preceding case. Plaintiff produced his books to show that the entries were in Mrs Crichton 's name and not in her husband's. Witness was cross-examined at great length, and admitted the accounts produced, which had been made out in the name of Mr Crichton. Both counsel having briefly addressed the court, His Worship held that the wife was not liable, and the case would be nonsuited with costs. T. R. Taylor v Tapini.— Claim £5 8s 6d. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff. No appearance of defendant. The plaintiff #aye evidence, and judgment was given for the amount and costs £1 14s and solicitor's fee 2ls. The Court then adjourned.