Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume XIV, Issue 26, 18 August 1892, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court

This Day. { (Before H. Eyre- Kenny, Esq.. R.M.) W. A. Saudilands v 0. A. Chime; claim £2 7s 3d due on a dishonored cheque. Verdict for the plaintiff for amount claimed. A. Purr v J. Martin; claim, £5 2s. Mr Richmond for plaintiff. Judgment | for the amount claimed, with costs 10s ■ and solicitor's fee. 21s. A. Parr v N. Charlton; claim £1 2s. J Mr Richmond for plaintiff. Judgment ' for amount claimed with costs 12s. ' A. Parr vF. Klink; claim 13s6d. Mr ' Richmond for plaiutifl. Verdict for J amount claimed with cost lis. ' VV. Bellve v T. Curran ; claim £6 3s. ' Mr Sandilands for plaintiff. Judgment ' for plaintiff for amount claimed with ' costs 18s and solicitor's fee 21s. ' S. J. Thompson v W. Newtnau ; claim * £8 11s4d. Mr Prior for the plaintiff. 1 Judgment for amount claimed with costs ! 28s, solicitor's fee 21s, ' Same v Ruere te Nuku ; claim £8 1 8s J 3d. Mr Prior for tho plaintiff. Judg- ' ment for amount claimed with costs 18s : and solicitor's feo 21s. ; W. L. Marshall v Kiwitea Road Board ; claim £100. Mr Hadfield for the plain- ' tiff and Mr Richmond for defendants. Action was brought by plaintiff who claims damages owing to Whare road not beiug completed aud giving access to his property as per contract made between the plaintiff and defendants. Mr Hadfield opened the case at great length for the plaintiff and quoted evidence to prove that if the question of ultra vires was raised by the defendants, still the fact that they had received the sum of £40 from the plaintiff in order to carry out a specific contract, which had not been executed according to agreement, the defendants were bouud to carry it out or else refund the sum advanced by the plaintiff. In case the defendants relied on the fact that the road as made benefitted a larger number of ratepayers, still counsel argued that this did not release the defendants from their liability. The plaintiff deposed that on the 20th of January, 1891, he went to defendants office on Board dav, and addressed the chairman re making the Whare road to to his place, and agreed to advance the Board £40 and three others were to make a similar advauce, the Government at the same time to lend a sum of £160 to complete the road as marked on plan A which is produced in Court ; no plan was put in at the time witness interviewed the Board ; nothing was settled at this interview, but afterwards the Board called for tenders ; the road as constructed is of no benefit whatever to the witness ; a twelve foot road would be necessary in older to be of any use to him. > Mr Richmond submitted that the three other persons who were interested in the formation of the Whare road should have been joined as plaintiffs in the action, and that plaintiff had failed to show any specific contract between himself and the Board. His Honor pointed out that the three other parties were to advance a certain sum as well as the plaintiff, and that in his opinion the other three persons should have been ioined as plaintiffs. The interests of the majority must be studied, otherwise the defendants would be liable to four separate actions. His Honor could not see any way in which the statement of claim could be amended, and he must non-suit the plaintiff, with costs against him amounting to 6s, solicitor's fee £3 3s, and witnesses expenses 10s 6d. Joseph Smith v. A. Hannett ; claim £1 10s 6d. Judgment for the plaintiff £1 7s 3d, with costs 6s. W. F. Marsh v John Martin ; claim £10. Mr Prior for the plaintiff, and Mr Sandilands for the defendant. Plaintiff deposed that his claim was for commission on finding a purchaser for Mr Martin's coach and horses. Cross-examined by Mr Sandilands : No time was fixed in which the transaction was 'to be completed ; the arrangement was for witness to receive £10 no matter what sum the plant realized. Defendant deposed that he did give Marsh instructions to find a buyer but the matter had been standing over for so long a time that he told Marsh he should withdraw the instructions for the sale. Mr Sandilands contended that his client was entitled to a nonsuit as it was simply a question of one man's word against the other ; if plaintiff's evidence was to be relied upon why did he not bring forward Managh to proye his case ? Mr Prior urged that his client was entitled to a yerdict, as he had given his evidence in a very straightforward way. Judgment was given for the amount claimed £10 with costs 10s, and 21s counsel's fee. [Left Sitting.