DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2051, 20 September 1880, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

Monday, Sbptbmbbe 20. [Before His Honor Judge Ward.] WITH DEAWN. The cases in which the Rakaia and Ashburton Forks Railway appeared as against John Mann and R. MoKerrow respectively, and which had been adjourned from last sitting of the Court, were withdrawn. Tho case of Robertson and McQueen v D. H. Christie, was also struck off the list. ADJOUHNBD. The following cases were adjourned till next sittings of the Court:—J. A. Graham v G. Ootterill, A. F. Somerville v O. F. Barker, Thomas Robson v David Patohett, and another case between the same parties, TBUBTEE IN THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF P. D. COYICH V O. H TOOSET. Mr Thomas appeared for the plaintiff, Mr Stringer for tho defendant. This was a claim to recover £2OO, the value of grain belonging to tho estate of P. D. Oovioh. Mr Francis, trustee in the bankrupt estate of Peter Daves Oovioh, stated that Mr Martin had given the bankrupt (tor a consideration) a lien over tho grain in question, and this grain Mr Toosey, the defendant, had purchased from Mr Martin after Oovioh became insolvent. The witness sought to recover the amount on behalf of the creditors, Martin not being entitled to sell. [The form of lien in question was handed in | Mr Stringer took an objection to the lien, submitting that it was not in accordance with the Act, inasmuch as it did not contain a description of the residence and occupation of tho lienor, as required. Mr Thomas pointed out that his learned friend’s objection was only supported by the schedule to the Act, but that did not apply, because the clause of the Act dealing with the matter directed that the lien should be in form of the schedule or effect thereof. After argument, his Honor took a note of the objection. Peter Daves Oovioh was the next witness examined, and he gave evidence as to the nature of the transactions between himself and Patrick Martin. He (witness) had been in the habit of advancing that person money. He lent him £SOO and obtained the lien in question as security. Mr Thomas wished to call Martin to prove identity of the grain. Mr Stringer said he would admit the identity, the required witness being absent. This concluded the plaintiff’s case. Mr Stringer, in opening the case of the defendant, submitted that ho was entitled to a nonsuit as against plaintiff on several grounds. He pointed out certain defects in the lien, and otaer technical informalities. Mr Thomas replied, and applied for an adjournment, in order to produce Mr Martin as a witness.

An adjournment being objected to, the plaintiff’s counsel agreed to take a nonsuit. [Lsft sitting.]