AHAURA.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1099, 5 February 1872, Page 2

AHAURA.

Thursday, February 1. (Before 0. Whitefoord, Esq., JR. M. Jas Hayes v. Fanny Venebles. — A claim of L 2 13s, for drapery sold at HalfOunce. Mr Guinness appeared for the defendant, and produced a document which purported to be a receipt in full. The plaintiff, and his brother, who sold the goods, both denied that the initials to the receipt were written by them. An adjournment was applied for, in order to produce the defendant. The Magistrate would grant an adjournment if the costs were guaranteed on the part of the defendant. This not being done, a verdict was given for the plaintiff, with costs. Marr and liock v. Ohas. Roche.— A ! claim of L 3 12s 6d, for goods supplied to Mrs Swords or Cameron, at Half-Ounce, on the defendant's order. The defendant denied his liability, and said that Mrs Cameron would persist in taking up her quarters in his house against his will, and that, finding he could not get rid of her, he wa3 obliged to abandon his house to her. The defendant produced a receipt in full from the plaintiffs up to the latter part of December, and he alleged that this covered all his debts to the firm, Verdict for plaintiffs for L 2 12s 6d, with costs. Dargan v. Nelson.— For L 3 Os 6d, for blacksmith's work done at Ahaura. The defendant disputed one item of 12s 6d, the price of a bridle, which he said he borrowed from the plaintiff, and was willing to return. Judgment for the amount claimed with costs. ' Alcorn and M'Farlane v. Felix West.r— An action to recover L 92, made up as follows : --L10, the amount of I 0.U. ; L 64, for sixteen weeks' rent of the Arnold and Grey ferries, at L 4 per week; Ll6, the value of a boat lost, and L 2, the value of a landing-stage lost or destroyed. Mr A. R. Guinness appeared for the plaintiffs, and MrW. Pitt, of Westport, appeared for the defendant. This claim originated in the year 1866,. at which time Alex. Montgomery was proprietor of the above ferries. He sold his interest therein to Alcorn and Co., and at the time of the sale, in June, 1866, the defendant was lessee of the ferries. In September, 1866, Alcorn and Co. sued West in the Resident Magistrate's Court, Hokitika, for the amount now sued" for, and the case was withdrawn., Messrs Tyler and Rees then wrote to West demanding the money with their costs. This letter was read, and Mr Pitt remarked it was a " very proper professional demand," especially the portion relating to costs. The next proceeding was an action brought against West again in the Court at Hokitika by Alex. Montgomery, trading as Alex. Montgomery and Co. This was on the 11th October, 1866, and Montgomery did no* appear. -^-An excuse was sent accounting for his absence, and the case was adjourned to the • 18th. There was a remarkable discrepancy in Montgomery's evidence with reference to these dates. At the adjourned hearing Montgomery did not appear personally, and the case was nonsuited with costs, the plaintiff Montgomery being mulcted in LI 3 13s and costs. A satisfactory reason was given for Montgomery's nonappearance on the second occasion, his absense being accounted for by his being in prison for debt. In cross-examination Montgomery said he sued West as the agent of Alcorn and Co., and he gave as a reason why he did so that one of Alcorn's firm had an objection to appear in Court as a plaintiff in any, case, and therefore the action was brought in his (Montgomery's) name. The matter was , allowed to slumber ever since, although Montgomery said he- met West at Westport in October, 1867, and the present plaintiffs were at that time living near the defendant, but no demand was made for the money nor. any action taken to recover it. Mr Pitt declined to call any evidence for the defence, but put in a number of documents and addressed the Court at some length. He commentedon the difference in "the bill of particulars furnished when the demand was first made and the one now sued on." On the former occasion the rent sued for was 12 weeks at L 5 per week, and the balance was made up of tolls for imaginary passengers at sixpence per head. There was nothing about the 1 0 U for LlO, now in the summons, which the learned gentleman delicately insinuated was nothing more nor less than an impudent forgery.' He characterised the case as a vexatious attempt to extort money from the defendant, and contended that the property or right, if any ever existed, never passed from Montgomery to Alcorn^and referred , to a letter which was produced, wherein Montgomery offered to negotiate terms about the ferry as his own property on the very day he swore he sold or made it over to Alcorn and Co. He argued on the merits that there was no ground of action, because the property or debt, being a close in action, were not assignable in law, although it might >be in equity. He dwelt upon the length of time allowed to elapse without any action being taken by the plaintiff, although the defendant was always within reach, and concluded by asserting that all the statements he had made would be borne out by the documentary evidence he put in, which had been obtained ; at great expense by "digging" among the records for the last six years in the offices of legal firms at Hokitika and, from other sources. Mr Guinness replied at some length, and his Worship reserved his decision which was given at a later period of the day. The Magistrate after reviewing the evidence and saying, that he had carefully examined the documents put in for the defence remarked hpon the absence of any specific agreement between the parties about the rental, of the ferry, and the evidence on this point went to show that after Montgomery sold the ferry, as he alleged, he offered to let it to the defendant. There was no mention of Alcorn and Co.'s names in the bill of item furnished with the summons in 1866 and in the letter which Montgomery wrote to We3t (which his Worship rea,d). . After the alleged sale to Alcorn, he (Montgomery) offered to bargain about the rent of the ferry as if on l his ''own account. Even after the- demand for a settlement had been made on West by ; Aloorn and Co.'s solicitors, Montgomery brought an action against West on his own account.

His Worship alluded to the discrepancies in the present and former bill of particulars^ and to the fact that all concerned in the suit were at one time at Westport together and no action was taken in the matter. The fact that the defendant, although he was in Court, was not piit into the box to give evidence was singular, to say the least -of it • but taking all the circumstances into .consideration, there were sufficient grounds [on which to nonsuit th.c , plaintifls. iThe :.plaintiffs were accordingly nonsuited, with til 13s costs., Mr Pitt applied;forif ull costs, and urged the vexatious nature of the action and the lamentable, manner in which, as he alleged, the plaintiffs' cause had broken down in support of his application. Mr j Staite (who appeared- for Mr Guinness) opposed the application on the other side, and suggested that (there was no necessity for defendant's personal attendance, as his evidence might have been taken at Westport. After a long . argument, the costs were taxed as above. ■ •:- , • The Bailiff v. M'Call.— Re Johnstonev. Laubere.— This ' was an interpleader action, to try the ownership of a house and section at Antonio's Flat, seized *o satisfy a judgment obtained by, J. F. Johnstone against the occupier of the premises; Wm. Laubere. . ; M'Call claimed; the property by virtue. of purchase, and' witnesses were called to prove that he: paid L 42. for the property. It, however, ; transpired that the money was given him by Mr Laubere, and the bailiff was directed to sell with full costs against the; claimant. Mr Staite for .the judgment: creditor, Mr Guinness for the claimant. . M'Laughlinv. M'Nee. -For 1.23 10s 7d,! goods and cash supplied,at Noble's Creek. ''•■ The defendant, filed a set-off, . and the i case was adjourned for further evidence. , Judgments were given f or the plaintiffs^ with costs,, in the following cases :— W. J. Shaw v. H. Moss, L 6 13s ; same v.: H. Morris, L 2 ss; M'Laughlin v. M. Simpson and Barracouta, L 26 6s lid ; R. W, Russel v. Ed. Murphy, L 25 15s ,4d ; same v. !i S; Dixon, L 2 5; Hayes v.; Graham, L 2 10s ; Jas. Cunningham v.i Jane M'Grath was enlarged. , ; . In the Warden's Court a number of disputed claims at Teviot Creek were disposed of, and both Courts were adjourned to Bth February. . . i