DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1845, 21 January 1880, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

TUESDAY, Jantjaby 20. [Before His Honor Judge Ward] S. BIMPSON'S TBTJSTEE V BBADWBLL. This case, brought by the trustee in the estate of S. Simpson, was postponed by consent, on the understanding that an endeavor would be made to settle it outside of Court. EVANS V M MILIAK'. In this case the plaintiff wan represented by Mr Oowlishaw. Defendant confessed liability, and judgment was accordingly given for plaintiff with costp. BBGINA Y CAKBBON. This case, being an appeal from the _ lower Court, had been adjourned at last sitting of this Court. Mr Harper appeared for the appellant; Mr Joynt for defendant. The evidence of Sampson Bowcher, for the production of which the case had been postponed, was taken. Hie testimony was to the effect that he heard the appellant admit the dog was not his. Mr Harper then addressed the Court. He contended that the conviction Y-;as bad, and submitted also that it could not be amended, as stealing a dog was only an offence, whereas the conviction was for a felony j also, that the magistrates had not awarded a proper punishment; nud, thirdly, that the Bench had exoeeded their power in ordering the dog to be restored to Mr Mcllraith. Mr Joynt replied at some length. The Court took time to consider its decision. BITJETT AND CO. Y OBAIG. Mr Izard appeared for the plaintiff, Mr Harper for the defendant. This was an action to recover the sum of £2Bl, the value of certain sheep alleged to have been included in a bill of sale between the parties concerned. Mr Izird said the case was brought by conBent to determine the question of title to the goods which were the subject of the declaration, there being no dispute as to the value. The plaintiffs were Bluett and Co, of Leeaton, and the defendant was creditors' trustee in the estate of Mr Manson. William J. G. Bluett deposed—That on Oc'ober 3rd, 1878, he was at the Addington Yards, when Manson came to him and asked him to give him (Manson) £l3O to pay for some horses, but he said he could not advance more money, as Manson's acoount was already very large, without tangible security. He then said he would give witness seouritv over horses, cattle, sheep, and agricultural implements which he then had on his property at the Tai Tapu. Witness then promised to advance the money on those conditions. There was no time to make out an agreement to that effect, but it was upon such understanding that witness advanced the money. Manson enumerated the stock he offered as security. Witness gave him the cheque, which was paid to Manson, who promised to give him a written agreement as to the security afterwards. The goods offered as security were the same as were mentioned in the bill of sale. Witness subsequently sold a property for Manson. Cross-examined by Mr Harper—When I advanced the money just stated Manson owed the firm about £I9OO. We took other security—namely, on his property at Dojleston, and a lien over the property at Gebbie's Valley. Bome of the herees bought with the £l3O were sold by us, and Manson was credited with the proceods. I think the horses were all sold at the time of the bankruptcy, after which th»>y remained in our hands. The purchase of tbe3e horses was not a private arrangement. Manjon mentioned sheep—4oo or 500—at the time I gave the advance. We have not realised under the mortgages. We have tried to. We are still in rjossession of the crop. Re-examined by Mr Izard —The bill of Bale was to include all money owing by Manson to the firm and to mo on my private account. Mr Jamieson, partner in the firm of Bluett and Co., was next called. He deposed to certain documents being correct copies of the ledger of Bluett and Co., and stated that on the 2nd October Manson owed the firm about £I9OO, made up of advances of £703, £l3O, and certain bills which the firm had to take up as they became due. Manson at present owed them a little over £2OOO. Isaac Allen, bailiff of the Supreme Court, and acting under sheriff, deposed to taking possession of Manson's property under writ of fi fa. There was no sale. Cross-examined —I held for the trustee and the sheriff. Thomas Shea, a bailiff, gave evidence as to taking possession of the property. This concluded the case for the plaintiff. His Honor remarked that the agreement as put in was worthless unless the registration was proved. In reply to Mr Harper, Mr Izard said he proceeded under the bill of sale and the agreement. Mr Harper submitted that his learned friend could not support his title under both, as the agreement must be merged in the bill of sale. His Honor said he should take it that the bill of sale was given in pursuance of the agreement. Mr Izird then proceeded to quote authority in support of bis contention that the regiotration was good —that the bill of sale waß filed on the first day on which it could be dono after the holidays. His Honor said he would, on the representations made by Mr Izard, take the bill of sale to have bean filed in proper time. Mr Harper then called evidence for the defence. John Macson, deposed—That in October, 1878, he bought some horses. He asked Bluott for the money to pay for the horses, and offered him security on the latter hesitating to consent. Bluett then arranged to give witness the money to buy the horses. Witness bought the horses to sell again at B'uett's. Witness was to have the profit on the transaction. The c was nothing said about it at the time, but that was the understanding. Witness got no benefit out of the sale. He believed he returned the horses in hi 3 four days' statement when he filed. The four horses he bought were included in the eleven horses given to Bluett under bill of sale. Witness owed Matson and Co. £6O, and to Acland, Campbell and Co. and others he owed money to the extent of about £SOO. There was no writ out against him when he gave the bill of sale. At the lime witness demurred to giving a bill of sale, as he owed other people money. He Baid this to Mr Jamieson. Had no other property left at the timo. He continued in possession of his fasrn at Dojleston up to the time of his bankruptcy, and carried on his business us farmer as before. The witness was cross-examined. This was all the evidence adduced for the defence. Counsel on either side then addressed tho Court, after which The case was adjourned by consent for the i production of evidence as to the branding of , I the cattle. The Court adjourned tts five o clock,