Feilding S.M. Court.

Feilding Star, Volume XVI, Issue 191, 12 February 1895, Page 2

Feilding S.M. Court.

_ THIS DAY. (Before Mr Stanford, S.M.) J. Darragh v. W. Horn, claim £23 8s 4d. Mr Saudi lands for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with costs 38s, and solicitor's fee £1 11s. E. F. Crawford v. F. Wellsman, claim £9 8s 20d. In this case Mr Reade, counsel for plaintiff, applied to have the solicitor's fee allowed, judgment having been confessed the previous day. Mr Sandilands, for defendant, opposed the application. His Worship held that the plaintiff was entitled to the costs as the case had been partially heard and then adjourned. Judgment for 10s with solicitors' fee 15s (>d. A. R. N. Hayne v. E. C. Deßaugh, claim L 32 15s lid. Mr Prior for plaintiff and Mr Sandilands for defendant. The evidence of defendant was taken in Christchurch, and was to the effect that he denied any liability on the grounds of infancy and partnership. Defendant had no money when he entered into partnership with plaintiff, who, it was arranged, "was to find the money required as he had no experience in the commission agency business. A. R. N. Hayne gave evidence of the claim which was made up of money lent for private use and for a part share of the cost of living, defendant having resided with witness ; defendant went to Christchurch on his own account without witness' consent, and the partnership was dissolved; defendant represented to witness that he had L6O coming to him from an Insurance company, but he actually had nothing. Cross-examined : There was no arrangement that witness I was to be repaid for the money advanced from profits to bo made in the business, but it was understood that he was to be paid out of L6O alleged to be due to De Baugh by an Insurance Company. At this stage His Worship raised the point that he had no special jurisdiction to deal with partnership disputes. Mr Prior, after argument, stated he would then reduce his claim to one for advances made outside the partnership. Mr Sandilands submitted that anything, unless it was for the necessaries of life, was not recoverable from an infant, and also that as several of the items sued for were a partnership account they were beyond the Jurisdiction of this Court. There should be a nonsuit on the items of partnership and the money lent, with the exception of a very small amount, was not recoverable. Mr Prior, in reply, contended that contracts made by infants were binding, providing they were for necessaries. The Act was for the protection of infants against unprinipled persons, and not as a means of avoiding the payment of just debts. In law and equity plaintiff was entitled to recover for the greater portions of the claim. His Worship thought the items of partnership and private account were easily distinguishable. It was clear a deduction must be made. Judgment would be given for the remainder of the cla ? m, L 25 13s sd, with costs 30s, and solicitor's fee L 2 11s. E. Worsfold v. E. Jackman, claim L 23 18s. Mr Prior for plaintiff and Mr Sandilands for defendant. This was a claim for damages, the defendant having assaulted plaintiff on November 26th, 1894. A counter charge was laid by Jackman against Worsfold that he did use insulting language, in Kimbolton road, which was calculated to provoke a breach of the peace. Edwin Worsfold deposed : On November 26th herrd defennant abusing the agents of C.A. & L. Corporation, and witness called him a " blackguard " ; defendant then struck witness a severe blow on the face, which prevented him from working for a month. Cross-examined: Daresay it was insulting to call a man a " blackguard " ; was very foolish to use the word to Jackman. Dr J. Sorley deposed to attending Worsfold for a month. T. Dixon deposed to seeing Jackman strike Worsfold. Mr Sandilands contended that it being through plaintiff's insulting behaviour that the assault was committed, he was not entitled to claim for the amount sued for. Joseph Belfit and Jackman gave evidence in defence. His Worship considered the charge under the Police Offences Act was proved, and Worsfold would be fined 10s with costs. With reference to the claim for damages the evidence was in favor of plaintiff, but the claim was too high. Nothing could be allowed of the i'lo for general damages ; the doctor's fee would be reduced from £8 to L 6, and 10s allowed for the chemist's account, and L 5 for loss of time, with costs 365. No witnesses expenses or solicitor's fees were allowed.