Feilding Stipendiary Court

Feilding Star, Volume XV, Issue 29, 3 August 1893, Page 2

Feilding Stipendiary Court

This Day. (Before Mr. Brabant, S.M.) "William Bellve v. Ruera te Nuku, claim £9 19s 6d on a judgment summons. Mr Sandilands for the plaintiff. There was no appearance of the defendent who was ordered to pay the amount to the Clerk of the Court within seven days, in default of payment to be imprisoned for ten days in Wanganui gaoJ. G. B. Bradford v. F. Sheerin, claim £2 14s 6d on a judgment summons. Mr Sandilands for the plaintiff. There was no appearance of the defendant who was ordered to pay the amount of the debt to the Clerk of the Court within seven days, in default of payment to be imprisoned for six days in the Wanganui gaol. G. J. Scott v. Wni. Managh, claim £'60 15s. Mr Sandilands appeared iorlthe plaintiff, and Mr Prior for the defendant. Mr Sandilands in opening the case for the plaintiff stated that the action was brought by Mr Scott the Official Assignee in the estate of Frank Gny, the claim ■ being for the hire of two horses lent by Gay to the defendant Managh. Frank Gay deposed that he lent the horses to Managh who had the use of them for some months. Subsequently he gave Messrs Thorburn, his nephew Frank Gay, junr., Ratlifl Bros., and Somerville orders at various times to receive the horses, but defendant refused to give up possession to anyone except witness. Sidney Ratliff deposed to his applying to Managh for the horses in question, which he declined to give up, stating that he would state his reasons for refusing to do so when the case went to Court. Cross-examined. — Managh based his refusal on the grounds that so many different orders had been given, that he declined to relinquish possession of the animals to anyone except Gay. Alfred Ratliff was also called for the plaintiff. Mr Prior in opening the case for the defence, stated that his client had no less than five different orders presented for the surrender of the horses, consequently he did not known whom to hand them over to, henco Managh's reasons for saying that' Gay must fetch them himself. William Managh in his evidence gave his reasons for refusing to relinquish the horses which bore out his counsel's openremarks Cross-examined. — Defendant did not remember meeting Rutliff Bros, in the town, and their making a demand on behalf of the Official Assignee, for the horses. Neither could he recollect Mr Reade advising him to hand over the horses to Messrs Ratliff. Robert Somerville deposed, that the customary charge for the hire of a horse for a term would be 5s a day, but in cross examination stated that he would not care to lend a horse to run to Birmingham in » coacn for only Gs per day. By the Bench. — Witness valued the horses at about £'6 10s each ; the animals were old and worn out. Counsel having addressed the Court, his Worship in giving judgment said that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, and defendant was bound to give up possession of the horses when he received the first order. The only question was as to the amount to be awarded. The claim would bo allowed on an equitable basis, and although the plaintiff had fully made out his case, the defendaut may have erred in ignorance. Judgment would be given for the sum of £15 7s 6d, or one half the amount of the claim, with £1 13s costs of Court, £1 witness' expenses, and £2 2s solicitor's fee. J. Munro v J. C. Fowler and Hilton Fowler, claim £19. Mr Sandilands for the plaintiff. The sum of £4, 10s had been paid on account, and judgment was given for the sum of £Hs 103 against the defendant J. C. Fowler, together with 23s costs of Court, 10s expenses of one witness, and 21 8 solicitor's fee. K. Cameron v J. A. Belk, claim L 6 6s 6d for the recovery of possession of a house sublet by Mr Pickering to the defendant. Mr Prior for the plaintiff, and Mr Sandilands for defendant. Henry Pickering deposed that he leased the house in question to Mr Cameron, and it was subsequently sub let to Belk. Witness had neTer received any rent from Belk. Mr Sandilands submitted that the plaintiff mast be nonsuited, as no contract between the plaintiff and defendant had been put in. Counsel quoted cases in support of his argument, but did not dispute the tacts adduced in evidence. Mr Prior, io reply, argued that a fresh teneacy had been created by word of tnoutb, therefore the cases cited by Mr Sandilands did not apply. The defendant in his evidence denied that Cameron told witness not to pay any more rent to Pickering. Cameron had not at any time asked witness for the rent, though he had received one letter from Cameron making such, a demand. His Worship ruled that as the witness Pickering could not fix a date when his tenancy of the house expired, plaintiff would have to submit to a nonsuit. This was all the business, and the Conrt adjoured.