Feilding S.M. Court.

Feilding Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 69, 18 September 1896, Page 2

Feilding S.M. Court.

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 18th, 1896. (Before R. L. Standford, S.M.) B. Poole v. G. F. Hunt ; claim, £6 6s Id. Mr Reade for plaintiff. Judgment far amount claimed with costs ill 16s and solicitor's fee 15a 6d. J. F. Bisbop v. A. McHardy; claim ±4 9s lOd. Mr Reade for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with costs 10a and solicitor's fee ss. C. J. Hansen v. G. Hayward ; claim £4 9s 6d. Mr Haggitt for plaintiff, Judgment for amount claimed with costs 12s and solicitor's fee 15s 6d. Berry and Trevena v. Chas. de Lacy McCarthy ; claim £1 14s 6d. Mr Reade for plaintiff and Mr Haggitt for defendant, who admitted the claim, but asked that execution be stayed to admit a cross action being taken. Judgment for amount claimed with costs 3s. R. G. Edwards y. A. Bull ; claim £8 15s Bd. Mr Sandilands for the plaintiff, Judgment for amount claimed with costs 17s, solicitor's fee 15s, and witness* expense 20s. Jas Canning v. W. H. Bishop ; claim £6 4s. Mr Cathro for plaintiff. Judg. ment for amount claimed with costs 15s* P. Thomson y. R. C. Templer ; a judg* ment summons claim £9 15s. Mi Sandilands appeared for defendant and asked that the case be held over as defendant was endeavouring to make pro* vision for the settlement of his liabilities. Adjourned to next court day, G. R. Rodgers v. Jas Miller ; a judg. ment summons claim £4 7s. Mr Richmond for plaintiff. Amount ordered to be paid forthwith or in default 14 days imprisonment ip Waaganui gaol. Charles Phillips v. W. Bacon ; claim £19 11s 7d. Mr Moore appeared for the plaintiff and defendant conducted his own case. A " set-off " amounting to £9 9s 6d was claimed by defendant, who also disputed a portion (6/6) of the claim. Plaintiff's claim was for the recovery of the balance of an amount alleged to be due for carting 367| yards of metal, at Is 6d a yard. From the evidence of plaintiff in cross-examination it appeared that he had worked on one contract for defendant on " piece " work and on a second contract they worked as partners. The plaintiff's " set-off " was for an amount alleged to have been incurred in the completion of the part* nersbip contract. In examination defendant admitted 24s of the " set-off." Jas Curtis gave evidence of the agreement between the parties, and defendant detailed at length the circumstances surrounding the agreements between himself and the plaintiff. His Worship allowed the full amonnt of the " set-off " and gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount admitted, viz., £9 16s sd, with court costs £2 8s ; no solicitor's fee or plaintiff's expenses were allowed. J. G. Campbell y. John Taylor ; claim £15 ss. Mr Sandilands for plainiiff and Mr Richmond for the defendant. Tnia was a ease in which the plaintiff sought to recover an amount for rent due to plaintiff by one Stokes, who had given a bill of sale over certain goods to the defendant in this case. The goods were seized under the bill of sale and sold accordingly. The case for the plaintiff was that the goods had been distrained for rent and that defendant's bailiff subsequently seized them by ferce. Law points had been argued in connection with the case at previous sittings of the court as to the legality of the 'distraint for rent, it transpiring in evidence that this distraint was for one week's rent too much, and it was also argued for tbp defence that the seizure under the bill of sale was made prior to the distraint, tup bailiff for the plaintiff not haying produced the necessary documents authorised his seizure. A ruling was given by His Worship that the cloth was tbe only article which could be seized fox the rent, and this, it was admitted, rea. Used £19 0s 8d at auction, therefore Mr Sandilands argued the plaintiff could recover for the full ataount of his claim less 12s 6d. Tbe evidence for tbe plaintiff was

taken at a previous sitiing of the court and for the defence Cbarles Hodges deposed to acting as bailiff for Mr Taylor, on July 17th, and to going to Birmingham on that date, -when he seized cert.iiu goods belonging to Mr Stokes under bill of sale ; was told that the goods had been distrained for rent ; he was not shown any document by Mr Sandeman's bailiff to show that the goods had been seized ; measured the cloth seized and there were 127| yardg ; plaintiff's bailiff did not object to witness seizing the goods. After hearing argument by Mr Richmond, and Mr Sandilands at length in support of the claim, His Worship gave judgment for the amount claimed less 12s 6<J, with costs 265, solicitor's fee 21s, and witness' expences 345. Left sitting.