Feilding S.M. Court.

Feilding Star, Volume XVII, Issue 118, 16 November 1895, Page 2

Feilding S.M. Court.

Friday, November 15, 1895. (Before Mr R. L. Stanford, S.M.) Jas. Purkiss v Albert Millard ; claim £1 13s lid. Mr Reade appeared for defendant, who disputed liability. No appearance of plaintiff, who, the clerk to the Court said he was instructed had abandoned the claim. Mr Reade asked that the case be struck out, which was done with solicitor's fee 10s 6d. Horace Bastings v Win. Holmes ; claim £6 6s. Mr Reade for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with costs 10s and solicitor's fee 10s 6d. A. K. Blundell, Inspector of stock laid an information against R. H. Carter for exposing sheep for sale which were affected with lice. Convicted and fined 20s with costs 7s. A similar fine was inflicted on H. Balfour for a similar offence, and H. J. H. Bowater was fined 5s with costs 7s on a similar charge. Joseph Smith vE. W. Spooner ; claim £16 16s. Mr Sandilands appeared for plaintiff and Mr Reade for defendant. This was a claim on a dishonored cheque for £14. The defence was that no consideration was given. Jos. Smith deposed; Cashed the cheque (±l4) produced, paying defendant £11 cash, he owing £3; informed defendant the cheque was dishonored ; defendant had never disputed liability on the cheque but always asked for time. Cross examined : Saw Mr Spooner sign the cheque, which was post-dated, played cards with defendant, who owed witness £3; it was a gambling debt; defendant owed £7 to another man when witness cashed the cheque. Re examined : The £3 was for gambling, but he handed £11 to defendantcash ; defendant asked witness to cash the cheque as he wished to pay £7 to someone else and also to pay for his lodgings. E. W. Spooner deposed : Wa9 in Feilding some two years ago, was canvassing tor the Govt. Life Insurance ; stopped at the Manchester Hotel ; had seen plaintifl on two or three occasions, when he played " bluff poker" wiih him (witness) ; the first time he saw Smith played with him and lost £2 or £3 in cash and when they finished up had lost £14 ; never got £11 in notes ; it was outside the Manchester Hotel when the cheque was paid ; had suspicion of foul play and that was why he refused to pay. Cross examined : — The money was owing for two or three months before h< found out the play was not fair ; have not the means to pay for the claim ; paid Mr Ba-tings before he (witness) left Feild ing ; this was p<ud out of a£2 cheque ob tamed from the Govt ; had L6 or t\ when ho went there ; did not tell Snail! that be suspected he had been v had" ant was not inclined to pay ; would aweai that Smi'h did not pay him any casl excepting over the cardtable ; at the con elusion of the game owed Smith £14 did not believe in Smith after the first tim< they met ; gambled about three eveningi with Smith, lost each time; lost abou £3 on the first occasion and 22* on thi second ; Doherty only played on the on< occasion with them ; had a little over L\ when they started play ; could not sai how much he loft to Doherty; woul< swear he did not borrow £7 to paj Doherty ; could not say how much b( paid Doherty, but owed him nothing whei they finished. His Worship was satisfied that whei one part of a " bill" was given for at illegal cousideration it vitiated the whol< and he believed the same applied ti cheques. The cheque itself could not b< sued on if Is was given in payment o a gambling debt. Tha consideration ii this case was illegal and plaintiff coul( not recover. Mr Sandilands asked permission ti amend the claim by making it Lll fo money lent, argu.ng that L 7 was lent ti pay another man and L4 to pay fo lodging and other expenses. His Worship ruled that this could no be dons in this case as it would introduci A fresh plea. The plaintifl" was nonsuitet without costs. Mary Howell v. Thomas Moffatt claim £14. Mr Reade for plaintiff anc Mr Sandilands for defendant. This wai a claim for the recovery of the value o a horse alleged to have been injurec while in the custody of plaintiff. I appears the animal was driven to Rangi wahia on March 17th last by Misi Richardson, who was accompanied bj plaintiff, owner of the horse, which wai put into a paddock by defendant frou instructions given by Miss Richardson On the evening following it was founc the horse had received serious injury. Mary Howell deposed : Lived at Bir mingham ; a horse owned by her was injured while in Mr Moffatt's paddock ; it was in sound condition when she drove it to Rangiwahia with Miss Richardson ; valued the horse at £14 ; had been offered Mb for it abonti a month before ; left the horse with Mr Moffati for three weeks after the injury and then removed it. Cross-examined : Mr Moffatt bad charged Mr Richardson for the oats the horse had eaten during the three weeks ; was of opinion that her horse was kicked by some other horse which was in the paddock. Robert Richardson deposed: Knew the mare in question which was injured he believed by a kick on the inside of the near hock while in Mr Moffatt's paddock. Thomas Woods deposed : Was a farmer at Pemberton ; saw Miss Howell's horse which was injured on the inside of the near hock ; should value the horse at from £12 to £14 ; the horse would not now sell. Mx Sandilands submitted the case should be non-suited as no contract was made by defendant with Miss Howell ; another point was that he was a bailee of the horse bat without reward and therefore they could not recover anything but for gross negligence. His Worship held that it was the duty of plaintiff to prove that any horse put in the paddock with hers was vicious. When a way-farer puts a horse into a paddock he has to accept a certain amount of responsibility. The plaintiff was non-suited with costs of court Bs, solicitor's fee 21s and witnesses' expenses £5 9s 6d. Thomas Jones v David Jones ; claim £11 10s. Mr Reade for plaintiff and Mi Sandilands for defendant. This was a claim for sixteen weeks wages at 12s 6d per week and found for the first four weeks, and £1 per week for the remainder of the time. Defendant admitted £7 of the claim. Thomas Jones deposed to being engaged by D. Jones to work for four weeks at 12s 6d per week and after that £1 a week and found. This evidence was corroborated by Thos. Jones, senr., father of plaintiff. William Baker deposed: The wages of a floorman smith would be 7s to 8s and for a fireman 9s to 10s ; should say plaintiff was worth £1 a week and fouud. David Jones deposed that the arrangement was that plaintiff was to be paid 12s 6d per week and he never asked that his wages should be increased. Mrs Katherine Jones, wife of plaintiff deposed to her husband telling her Thomas Jones was engaged at 12s 6d per week and found, in the presence of plaintiff ; nothing was said in her presence, about increasing the wages. Judgment was given for plaintiff with costs 14s, solicitor's fee 26s ; witness' expense 63. Samuel Knight v. Albert E. Bull; Claim LBO IDs lid. The amount of L27 139 2d was admitted by defendant, the balance of the claim being disputed. Mr Hankiris appeared for plain* iff and Mr Richmond for defendant. The sum of Ll&wap given credit for by plaintiff he

having got the horse (value for which was in the claim) back. Plaintiff was examined as to the various items in dispute, and the defendant and J. Brown fjave evidence for the defence. His Worship thought the items were all sustainable with the exceptions of the claim for use of the roller for which he deducted 6s and 2s off the chaff as agreed plaintiff having given credit for LlB for the horse returned. Judgment was tor plaintiff for Ll2 5s lid, with costs 26s and solicitor's fee L 2 2s. G. Arnold y. Fabian de Lisle ; claim L 6 18s 6d. Also, G. J. Scot against the some defendant, claim L 3 Is. Mr Han. kins appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr Reade for the defendant in each case, which were taken together. These were interpleader cases, two horses, a saddle and bridle having been seized by the bailiff in satisfaction of the claims, be believing them to be the property of defendant, whereas Mrs de Lisle claimed them. Ernest Browu deposed : Was a livery stable keeper at Palmerston North ; got a cheque signed by Mrs de Lisle for the purchase of a pony; the amount was about £7 ; handed the pony over to Mr de Lisle. Cross-examined by Mr Hankins: Mrs de Lisle gave witness the cheque to pay for the pony providing it went under the standard of polo ponies. H. B. Dyer deposed : Was clerk in the : Bank of Australasia ; procured certain cheques signed by Mrs de Lisle, who kept an account at the Bank of Australasia. Cross-examined : Mr de Lisle has paid in money to the Bank to Mrs de Lisle's credit ; Mr de Lisle has an account at the Bank. R. Collins deposed : Sold a saddle to Mrs de Lisle, who paid for it ; had not seen the saddle seized. Caroline £. de Lisle deposed: Was the wife of Fabian de Lisle ; had money of her own ; bought several things since , she was married ; the two horses, saddle I and bridle seized were purchased by [• her with her own money; instructed I Brown that if the pony passed under , the polo standard he was to buy it and , gave him a cheque for that purpose ; Mr - de Lisle went to take delivery ; bought another horse from Abraham and Wil- '. Hams, which she paid for ; bought the I saddle from Mr Collins ; claimed all these r goods as hers. Cross-examined: Mr de Lisle had a , horse in Feilding when she married j him ; this horse was not paid for at the , time and witness paid for it since her I marriage; had a few pounds in cash . when she came to Feilding besides money invested ; since then sold a bouse } in Palmerston and paid £100 into the j ' Bank of Australasia to open an account ; I have always had a credit in the Bank r si ace her* husband got bis living by j teaching painting and music, and journalism ; thought his income was about £200 . a year ; thought she paid £160 into the I Bank to her own credit about a month g ago ; none of her husband's money was t paid into witness' credit in the Bank ; 9 the saddle seized by the bailiff was 3 bought from Mr Collins, j Fabian de Lisle deposed : By profesf sion was a journalist, but taught music } and painting in Feilding ; the properties , seized were not his, but bis wife's, who 3 paid for them out of her own money ; i paid out of his earnings £20 daring the past five months, which was owing to ! person's in Palmerston. ! Cross-examined: Paid £10 into his B wife's credit to-day (Friday) ; this money •j was drawn for house rent due to his b wife. f Judgment was given for claimant in 3 interpleader (Mrs de Lisle), with costs j of court 6s, solicitor's fee 10s 6d, and witness' expenses 10s, in each case. D O. S. Tyerman y. W. J. Tyerman ; • r claim £25 13s 4d. Mr Richmond for 0 plaintiff. This was an application to r take evidence, the case to be decided at Hastings, and the evidence for the plaint tiff only was taken. B O. S. Tyerman deposed: Was suing j W. J. Tyerman, of Hastings, chemist, for £25, with interest, on a P.N. which . was dishonored ; a counter claim of £50 [ had been filed by W. J. Tyerman ; did 3 not owe that amount; the £50 was f really due by witness' brother to wit- } ness ; this was payable by P.N., which 1 was met ; W. J. Tyerman owed him £15 . in addition to the "amount now claimed. 3 T. R. Tyeiman deposed : Witness and j the last witness had been in partnerj ship ; did most of the business ; the x P.N. produced was given by W. J. Tyerman, no part of which has been paid ; [ the counter claim of £50 put in by W. J. Tyerman was not owing ; neither witness nor previous witness owed anything j to W. J. Tyerman. . This was all the business and the ! court adjourned.