CIVIL CASES.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2017, 11 August 1880, Page 4

CIVIL CASES.

Tho following cases wore heard at the B.M. Court yesterday :—Duncan v this case, which, at several previous hearings, has been fully reported, judgment was now given. Defendant was sued by the trustee in the bankruptcy of one Davis for the restoration of some cattle which declared had been hona fide purchased by him before the bankruptcy. Mr Loughrey appeared for plaintiff, Mr Stringer for defendant. His Worship said that as the proof of plaintiff’s case mainly depended on Davis’s evidence, who in the same matter had been convicted of perjury, the judgment must be for defendant. No other conclusion could be come to, still he would have greatly preferred to see the case re-opened, as the whole affair was most unsatisfactory. Judgment for plaintiff with costs of Court and professional fee, witnesses’ expenses not allowed. Treloar v Treloar. Defendant, who resides in Hokitika, is the editor of a newspaper. A long time ago he sent his daughter to his brother in Christchurch, with whom she has resided without any payment being made for her maintenance. In July last plaintiff sued for and obtained judgment in £32 15s against defendant on that account. The money had not been paid, and the present application was for execution to issue. Mr Joyce appeared for plaintiff. Tho magistrate produced a telegram he had received from defendant, stating that he could not answer the judgment summons, having no funds his own, and the plaintiff had not tendered him his expenses. Mrs Treloar, wife of defendant, living in Christchurch, proved that he was in the receipt of £4 per week wages, and a like sum by bequest, out of which he was supposed to allow witness £2 per week, but seldom did it, and he had none other but his personal expenses. The Bench said that as the statement made by telegram was unsupported by affidavit, notice could not be taken of it. The order would be for defendant to pay the amount claimed in instalments of £2 weekly, the first payment to be made in fourteen days, or, in default, three months’ imprisonment in the gaol at Hokitika. Murphy v Bagg, £7 8s fid. This was a judgment summons, on which plaintiff applied for execution to issue. Mr Stringer appeared for the defendant. In November, 1879, Bagg owed Murphy £7 13s fid, and about that time went bankrupt. Murphy issued a summons for the amount, and Bagg called on him and told him be had filed his schedule. Murphy said he knew that, but having made a bet of £1 with a cabman that he would sue Bagg whether he was bankrupt or not, the summons was taken out, and as it only cost 8a ho would be a gainer in this transaction of 12s. On Bagg paying him 5s for the summons, and promising to liquidate the whole debt in like instalments weekly, Murphy told him the summons would not be proceeded with. Murphy, however, appeared at Court and got judgment. In answer to the Bench, plaintiff admitted having sworn at the first hearing that defendant owed him £7 13s fid, when in point of fact, having paid ss, the sum due by defendant was only £7 8s fid. Mr Stringer pointed out that, as defendant was a bankrupt when the case was previously heard, and the debt having been contracted before his bankruptcy, Murphy had no claim except as any other creditor in the estate, and the whole proceedings before the Court were void. His Worship said that plaintiff was a man who seemed to have no regard whatever for the obligations of an oath, but said just whatever it suited his case to say. He would find some time, perhaps, that he would bo hoist with his own petard. Order _ Refused. Judgments for plaintiffs were given in Hoffmeister v McDonnell, £ll 10s, and Herman v Langford, £2. Judgment went by default in Canterbury College v Dawson, £73 ; Paynter v Dunphy, £9 10s lid ; Laylook v Campbell, £2; Rowe v O’Oallaghan, £5 lie 5 Orother v Hunt, £4 16s 4d; Heslop v Hoffmeister, £3 ; Hobday and Co. v Hart, £7 15s; Angel and Hankins v Nelson, £sl6s 9d ; Patterson v Lee, £2 10s ; Same v Hicks, £9 3s; and Same v Bollantyne, £2O. Canterbury College v Tisch was deferred till August 24th, Bowden v Mair till August 17th, and Hamilton v Maher till this day.