RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, AHAURA.

Grey River Argus, Volume XIII, Issue 1615, 8 October 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, AHAURA.

:.; Friday, October 3;. ; . i , {Before Caleb Whitefoord, Es l^, R.M:) ' Alcorn vJ Sheehan '■'(■Be Foldi, . claimant): : This was an action to test the ownership of a share in a gold-mining leasehold, at ■ Granville, Half-Ounce; At a recent sitting of the Court Robert Alcorn, as in the; estate of Christy IrVine ? a : " (butcher, obtained j u dgnien t against: Shee- ' 1 ihan ,for L 33, "with'ctats! '; To satisfy the 'verdict the; bailiff ,seize!d a share' ,iri : ;O'Hara and .party's leasehold^ as bekrag-r , ing to Sheehanj but the property was | jclaimed by Alexis .E|oldi,-:a' storekeeper ..at. 1 *■■ Mabille, whq alleged he held it as secuL; ;rity for a d«sbt of L 53,' owing to him by 'Sheehan, and contracted subsequent ;fco.. j-- the debt due Irvine. A counterpart ! bf ; the lease from' 1 the i Superintendent of Nelson to Sheehan \ and ■ others of the 1 claim was prpducedj and also a transfer „ of the share irom Sheelian to. Foldi. . The |case: turned' upon the validity; of .this . ' 'transfer, and the. admissibility -of; ; the: - ilease as evidence. The deed under, which •the .... transfer was made was offered . as. , \ evidence for the claimant by Mr Staite, but it was objected by Mr Guinness for 'the plaintiff, that the document was in- *' admissible because it was not signed on the day on which it was dated, and it was contended that the attesting witnesses » be present to prove the signatures. 7 In reply, Mr Staite admitted that if the--1 document was one which required attesl tation, the atlestitig.witnesses '; should be - produced,, but in. the present case it was not necessary the so-called deed should be witnessed, and the test was that the : transfer could be effected : without the 7 attestation. Against this Mr Guinness , argued ! that 'the deed related to 'an interest in land, and all' such deeds must have attesting witnesses. 'The present deed dealt with lan;d ; ifc had bepn. filed *■ and registered as , a bill of; 'sale, clearly > ; showing that it attesting witnesses; and that ; being tfie case those; witnesses -should .be i ; produced. : The 'Court had great discretionary power in' the admission' of all 'kinds of evidence, but if the validity of a document offered | in evidence. was questioned, it was surely 'necessary to have the required proof of its legality. The Magistrate ;held the objection to. be good, and Mr : Staite ., elected to. proceed with his case without- relying upon the deed, Mr Guinness then objected to the ad-, mission of the lease on the ground that it was only a counterpart ; of. the r . original witnessed by Alfred Greenfield^ with a memorandum' signed by S. G. Rowley.' The original lease, with all the witnesses to it, should be produced^ but he (Mr Guinness) would not object to admit the document to the extent of proving that ! Sheehan was a sharoholder*. Mr Staifce asked if it was necessary he should- reply to the objection. ; The admission of such documents was never questioned. His Worship was. quite willing, if Mr .Guini ness persisted in his objection, to adjourn the case to take the evidence of Mr Greenfield at Nelson, but the Court was not prepared to accept the dictum of Mr \ Guinness as to what portions of the conitents of the lease should be admitted as evidence; Mr Guinness then' withdrew his objection. The Clerk to the Warden offered proof from the records of 'thedssue of the lease: . Mr, Guinness objected .that such testimony was mere hearsay, and at best but secondary evidence. His Worship inquired of Mr Guinness if the objectwas not to find out whose property, the share was, and. were they not there to endeavor to do justice between .the parties, or was it intended to call all the Government officials 1 of Nelson to give evidence before these objections would cease % Mr Guinness would assure his ' Worship that the Nelson , Government , officials . were the very last ; persons he desired to ' call in support of any argument of i -his. 1 He objected to the proof offered, ( andhe insisted that, his., client had a right to have the claimant's title presented in a proper manner. . . Mr Staite contended that he was offering the very best evidence by producing the officers arid records of 'the Courfc'. ' His Worship^ ; assented, ['[ 'and directed the witness to proceed. ' Proof of the.issne of the lease was .then given, also that /, Sheehan was a shareholder,., and transferred his; interest tpEoldi as security, for L 53 due by Sheehan: out of an account of :^240 due the claimant :by the company. It ■■- was stated that the ; party to - which Sheehan' belonged- owed ■ 'Irvine Ll5O, arid that ; it was only when " Alcdi?ri (who purchased the book debts 1 of Irvine's. estate for. ; 3a 6d; ! in^ the L) 'thereateried to' sue; that the share' was transferred to;, Foldi as a matter of form. 'The 'v&luV of l Sheeh'ari'a company's debts was variously estimated as worth from 3s 6d to 20s in the L! H^s Worship, in giving judgment, .reviewed the, evidence careMlyj-a^d;femark'ed that it waa not alleged' that'' there had been collusion or fraud between „F oldi; . and Sheeh,an} neither, was it denied that Sheohan owed Jbhe claimant the amount of the debt for which the share was transferred. He; held that the; transfer was effected legally and in accordance; with the Regulations, and if thecase was.between Foldi and Sheehan he would 'consider the share was .' the property : Of Foldi, ' arid that Sheehan had 'parted with' his interest in a bonafide manner and for^a good consideration. On that' point he'wc.uld' decide the present lease, and give a verdict for the claimant. The . bailiff would be ordered to withdraw, but without costs; with! the exception of -'a professional fee: of one guinea, because the plaintiff had good grounds for his action.' ■ Reid v. Gordori.^r-A claim of lilO,made out as follows :— At the last,'3tock sale at the Carleton yards, Ah'aura, the plaintiff bought a cattle dog for L 5 from Mr

Tabart, with a warranty, as he alleged,, that the dog was trained 1 to working cattle and sheep. When the plaintiff had a trial of the dog he found the animal worthless ; in fact, as the plaintiff de..s'cribe4.4t>..^l.jfehe.^tyke i ..was.,a,dufFer,-,andr "had I riV rriorenotioh of his work' than the lbwestrbre'd ( mongrel .that <ever wa3 pupped." A reserve of L 5 was placed upon the, dog .by the defendant, and :ther plaintiff agreed to,. give that price if it worked satisfactorily.' After the trial and failure, .he "appealed ,to the ; defendant,, who" allowed 1 the first" bargairi L '*o be offf and gave the plaintiff another dog, which. tufned : out, T 'if possible, 1 ' worse :; thari Vi the 1 ' first. The defendant 'left 'the second dog with the plaintiff, 'with instructions f to -sell it if he , could, and he said when he roinirned^with^th'e next mbb'bf cattle from Canterbury he would refund the L 5. The plaintiffwas not'satis'fiedi' as hexould riot get ,_a promissory t note, ,and he , npw r 'deman'dedthe price Tie paid for' the dbg,^ with L 5. as damages for loss of . time. .The defence' was'a' denial of the warfantry^ and a repudiation of any liability on the part of the def^ndanti' who' alleged; if any |one was responsible, Mark Sprot and Co. ■were the' individuals. .., The ;dqg.f worked well on the journey overland from Canterbury, and it might be that the idid not understand how to work a dbg* trained as the one in dispute was. ; The Magistrate considered the first bargain 'was rescinded, andin that case it would ■not be necessary to obtain Mr Tabart's version of the matter,; whose evidence as jto the guarantee would- be ■ conclusive. • iThe fact pf ; the' deferidant:'prbmising to return the. money when , he came back 'frbrri' Ch'ristchurbh^ ! was eribugK to' show I that, he considered the secpisd sale was also set 1 aside/ 1 Verdict' for the plaintiff for L 5, with- costs. Mr Staite for the jplaintiff. ■ . --■ : •.•■■■' ; ■■' ; J : ■ Mulvey v. Stephenson. ■—'&. cjaim of L 9, for goods' supplied 'at^^ Sullivan Creek, Ahaura. Judgment by; coriserit'fpr. the amount claimed, with 'costs'.;,;,' '.',.