RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Grey River Argus, Volume X, Issue 815, 8 March 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, March 7. (Before J. Greenwood, W. H. Harrison, and E. Wickes, Esqs., J.P.) The following civil cases were heard : — Nnncarrow, Henderson and Co v. John Tucker. — This case came within the extended jurisdiction, but the plaintiffs were anxious to have it heard by consent before the present bench, in order to do away with the necessity of the defendant coming again from the Ahaura. The defendant at first consented, but afterwards, nnder the advice of Mr Guinness, objected, and the case was adjourned to the 14th. A number of other cases were adjourned to the same day. Sheedy v. Maher. — There was no return of this summons from Hokitika. Mr Guinnew complained of this, as the summons had been a month in Hokitika for service, and no return bad been made, although the defendant was well known, and was at work within four miles of Hokitika. The Bench instructed the clerk to write to the clerk to the Bench at Hokitika as to the cause of the delay. Ryan Bros. v. M. Codyre. — A fraud summons ; the defendant did not appear, and a warrant waa ordered to issue. Cleve v. Jordan.— Judgment by consent for L 7 Is lOd. Guinness v. Maxwell.— Plaintiff sued defendant for L 6, being balance of money alleged to be due tinder an agreement made by the defendant with the plaintiff, for professional services in the defence of Joseph Graham. Mr Newton appeared for the plaintiff, and stated that in September last, one Joseph Graham was indicted for fraudulent bankruptcy, and that the plaintiff was engaged by the defendant to undertake his defence for L2O, in the Supreme Court. The plaintiff did so, and he had received L 9 on account from the defendant, and L 5 by an order of Graham, and he now sued for the balance. — A. R. Guinness deposed that on the 7th or Bth September last he made an agreement with Maxwell to defend Graham, who waa committed for trial on a charge of fraudulent bankruptcy. He was called into Maxwell's by Tucker, and witness went in, and Tucker, Graham, and Maxwell were present. A conversation took place with regard to defending Graham, and witness was asked if he would undertake the defence. Witness consented, if the opposing creditors for whom he had acted would not object. It was arranged that L 5 was to be paid in any case, and Lls more if Graham was acquitted. When the agreement was made witness said that he must either have the cash down, or some responsible person to look to, as Graham had no money. Mr Nancarrow's name was mentioned, but Mr Maxwell said he would pay the amonnt. It was arranged that, if necessary, Mr Button's services were to be retained by witness, but witness conducted the case, anl Graham was acquitted. Maxwell has since paid a portion of the money. In cros3 examination witness was positive tha f Maxwell engaged him and not Graham. Maxwell said " I will pay you." Maxwell paid the L 9 in Graham's presence. Graham afterwards gave an order for L 5, which was held by the police bolonging to him. Witness defended Graham as a barrister, but most of the work done was as a solicitor — going to Hokitika, attendance on Court, and drawing up brief. John Tucker corroborated the last witness as to the engagement of Guinness by Maxwell. Ho was certain that Maxwell said he would pay Guinness, and not that he would guarantee only for Graham. Mr Perkins, for the defence, remarked that his client was at a great disadvantage, in not bei.ig able to get the evidence of Graham, who was in prison, and could not be brought up except under a habeas corpus. Otherwise he could have satisfactorily proved that Maxwell gave only a verbal guarantee to secure the payment to Mr Guinness. He might raise technical objections to the case— the plaintiff had done certain work as a barrister, for wh'ch he could not legally charge, and further the alleged engagement (if any) was made on a Sunday, and was a void contract. He would, however, place the defence on the merits of the case. He called Mr Maxwell, who said that on a Sunday jnst before the sitting of the Supreme Court at Hokitika he remembered the plaintiff, Tucker, and Graham coming into his sittinsf-room, and a conversation took place with regard to Graham's defence. When plaintiff spoke about having some responsible person to look to for payment, witness heard Mr

Nancarrow's name mentioned, and he (witness) then said that surely two name 3 (Mr Nancarrow "and his own) were plenty, and plaintiff then appeared satisfied. Witness distinctly denied having done more than offer to guarantee payment of the amount. He had no money of Graham's in bis possession at the time. Witness did not pay plaintiff L 9 as sta+ed. It was paid by Graham in witness' presence. Graham pulled out the L 9 and some silver, and paid Guinness the L 9, saying that he must wait until he could earn the balance. This witness was subjected to a severe examination by Mr Newton, but he persisted in denying having been the principal in the case. After counsel had addressed the Court the Bench decided that the balance of proof was in favor of the plaintiff, and gave judgment accordingly with costs.