MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume VI, Issue 161, 19 July 1901, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

j SOME IMPORTANT CASES. There was quite a field day in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, when some very important eases were heard and decided. UNDEFENDED CASES. Common, Shelton and Co. v. C. R. Wells, claim XT 12s; judgment by default for XT 12s, costs ss. (Mr DeLautour for plaintiffs). W. A. O’Meara v. Donald McKenzie; judgment for £SO Ids 2d, costs X’2 os. James McKee v. William Morell ; judgment for 17s, costs ss. (Mr Lysnar for plaintiff.) Isabella Mc-nzies v. William Wyllie; judgment for £5 2s, costs 18s 6d. (Mr Jones for plaintiff). In the judgment summons Charles Martin v. Te Kani Pore the debtor did not appear, and an order was made for payment of the amount (X 34 13s 8d) forthwith, in default 30 days’ imprisonment. (Mr Rees for judgment creditor.) workmen’s wages act.

In the eases heard on Monday against P. Mooney and the Waiapu County Council, His Worship delivered judgment. He said that as to the question of the .£'s9 which it was contended should have been paid into Court by the defendant Council, | it appeared to him clear, from the evidence, that the £59 could not have been in the hands of the Council in connection with the first contract at the date of service of notices by plaintiffs. In regard to the second point, viz., that moneys due or accruing clue in connection with the second j contract were attachable under the provisions of the Contractors’ and Workmen’s Lien Act, 1892, and tiie Workmen’s Wages Act, IB9d, by workmen for work done by them in connection with the first

contract. Looking tit the whole tenor of the Acts, lie thought they only content' plated a lien by workmen upon the proceeds of the contract upon which they were actually employed. Therefore, workmen upon No 1 contract could not, in his opinion, by process of the Acts referred to attack moneys due upon No. 2 contract. It appeared to him that the only course open to them by way of attachment was under section 135 of the Magistrate’s Court Act, 1893. He therefore entered judgment as follows : In the ease of Itichardson and others v. the Waiapu County Council, and Whelan and others v. same, the defendant Council having paid into Court the balance due under the contract upon which the plaintiffs were employed, judgment would bo for defendant, without costs. In the case of Brown v. tho Council, and Patrick Mooney, judgment would be for tho amount claimed, £52 10s, as against defendant Mooney', with costs of Court .02 3s, solicitor’s fee X2 6s 6d. His Worship ordered that the sum of •Cl2O paid into Court by the defendant Council, and now in the hands of the Clerk of the Court at Port Awauui, be paid to the respective plaintiff's in equal proportions, according to the amount of their liens, and in accordance with the priority laid down in secton 7 of the Contractors’ and Workmen’s Lion Act, j 1892. A PROMISSORY N’OTK CAS!

Fanny Stevens sued James Boyle Adams for X 22 6s Bd, amount duo on a dishonored promissory note endorsed by T. G. Lawless to her. A counter claim was set up that Lawless, as plaintiffs agent, had received various sums for discounts and renewing promissory notes for defendant, which sums the defendant sought to recover back. Mr Jones appeared for plaintiff and Mr DeLautour for defendant. Mr Jones said he would content himself in proving formal matters, and if the questions raised in the counter claim were gone into by defendant ho would further examine. Plaintiff -gave evidence that she had given value for a promissory note before it was dishonored, that it was not her money originally advanced, and that Lawless did not advance money for her. She bad not personally persentod the promissory note at the bank. Mr DeLautour submitted that plaintiff must bo non-suited, as she had not proved presentation of the promissory note at the place mentioned in the note. Mr Jones contended that presentation was unnecessary to render the maker of the note liable, although without it the endorser could not be made liable. The promissory note was in the usual form, and the words “ payable at the Lank of Australasia, Gisborne,” was only a memorandum, and not in the body of the note. His Worship held that proof of presentation of the promissory note was necessary, and non-suited plaintiff with XT Is, solicitor’s fco. The counter claim was struck out. Mr Jones said, as the decision was of great importance to commercial men, most likely he would appeal.

I‘llO.MOTElls’ LIABILITIES. Williani Sievwright sued Valentine Aston, Edward Henry Fcaton, and Thos. George Lawless for X 29 18s 6d, legal costs in connection with the flotation of the Boot Sole Company, which was never floated. Mr DeLautour for plaintiff, and Mr R. N. Jones for defendant. It was admitted that legal work was done, but the defendants urged—(l) That the solicitor was to be paid out of the paid-up shares by the promoters ; (21 that the plaintiff was as much a promoter as the others, and could not claim against his copromoters. Upon the evidence the defendant's counsel abandoned the first ground, but urged that the solicitor was one of the promoters. Mr Sievwright’s position was only that of solicitor and client, and that he was entitled to bo paid. His Worship held that the plaintiff was not a promoter, and could claim for the work done against the defendants, but final judgment was reserved till Saturday morning so as to allow the question of amount being settled by the parties.

A CLAIM l-'OP. OVERTIME. In the case of Common, Shelton and Co. v. Hugh Binnie the defendant claimed a set off' against plaintiffs, demanding the sum of A 4 4s for overtime. (Mr DeLautour appeared for plaintiff and Mr Rees for defendant). After heaving evidence His 'Worship came to the conclusion that the defendant having given receipts for his wages in full could not now claim overtime, and entered up judgment for plaintiffs accordingly.

a wife’s liabilities. In Common, Shelton and Co. v. Mrs C. G. Paulgrain, claim .-£47 16s lOd, the plaintiff tried to establish that the. defendant, whoso husband had become bankrupt, had received the credit and was entitled to pay the amount. Mr DeLautour appeared for .plaintiff and Mr L. Rees for defendant. From the evidence it appeared that it was always Mrs Paulgrain who got and ordered rlie goods, and that she had promised to pay quarterly when her husband i-eceived his wages. It was admitted that the charges throughout had been in the books in the husband’s name, but it was contended that this was a bookkeeper’s mistake, and that Mrs Paulgrain in a letter to the firm had treated it as a personal debt. His Worship said he was satisfied the goods had been supplied qn the husband’s credit and non-suited the plaintiff with costs £2 Bs.

AX IMPORTANT RATING CASE,

A case in whioli only a small amount was claimed, but which involved a large principle, was that of the Whataupoko Road Board against Alice Lewis, claim for three years’ rates. Mr L. Rees appeared for the* Board, and Mr R. K. Jones for the defendant. Formal evidence was given by Mr McKay, the Clerk, that a rate of •2jd in the .£ was struck in 1890 to cover the interest on the loan. It was for a term of 26 years, payable half-yearly, and was a recurring or continuing rate. Demands had been sent out, but although she paid her other rates, defendant contested this one. In crossexamination, Mr McKay stated that when the rate was struck defendant’s I assessment was only .£3O, but by improve : meats and otherwise it had now reached J 2195. The rate had been reduced to Id in the £, but the defendant had to pay much more than she originally had to, on account of the valuation being increased. Mr Jones, for the defendant, said that with regard to some of the rates the Act barred His Worship, on account of two years having elapsed since they were due, "but his main point of contention was that the Board had no right to increase the valuations from year to year on special rates, The rate was to be struck on the valuation roll for the time being in force. This, he contended, meant the time being when the rate was struck, and he pro- ' duced the authority of Chief Justice Pren- , dergasf in a Pahiatua case tg show that

value it was struck for 26 years, and could not be altered except to let fresh rateable property in, and to increase or diminish the rate so as only to yield what was necessary to pay the interest and charges on the loan. Whether rateable value increased or decreased, the property must still pay . the rate on the original value. He cited at length the various Acts bearing upon the subject. Another point raised by Mr Jones was as to the legality of the demands on which the clerk’s “signature was printed. He thought it only right to mention the point, as it might be raised in a more serious I case. Under the Act of 1882 these demands could be signed “ either in writ- I ing or print,” the Act of 1594 omitted these words, and this, he contended, meant signing in the ordinary sense, and as signing the demand was one of the essentials, he suggested that a signature affixed by a printer and not by the party ] himself was insufficient. The case was adjourned until this morning, when Mr Bees will reply to Mr Jones’ arguments.