DISTRICT COURT.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume I, Issue 5, 1 August 1861, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

Thursday, July 25

The Judge was occupied from the sitting of the Court till one in revising the voters’ list for the Clive District; the revision of the Napier District list having taken place on the preceding day. But few alterations were made, and-most of the claims to vote were allowed.

The Court then proceeded with the cause list.

Tnlce v. Smith

Was an action brought by Edmund Tuke against William Smith to recover £2l 10s., for rent of certain premises in the Green Meadows leased by the plaintiff to the defendant, to which defendant pleaded that no rent accrued during the days named. That as to £l3 10s., parcel thereof, the plaintiff had already brought an action therefor in the Resident Magistrate's Court, when judgment passed for defendant. That the plaintiff had re-entered upon the premises and parted with his reversion ; and that the only rent, if any, due was £ls 10s., for which sum the Court had no jurisdiction. After argument by the counsel on each side, the Court held the last plea good, and dismissed the plaint for want of jurisdiction. Mr. ‘Wilson for the plaintiff’; Mr. Allen for the defendant. Smith v. Atkinson. In this case the plaintiff sought to recover the sum of £25, the agreed price of a horse sold to the defendant. The defendant pleaded payment. Mr. Allen appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. B. Taylor for the defendant. The plaintiff proved the sale and delivery of the horse for £25 on three months’ credit; but as he was leaving the place in debt, to prevent its being taken in execution by a creditor, he gave defendant a receipt ; denied having received any portion of the amount; and the papers in an interpleaded summons between the defendant, the sheriff, and an execution creditor were put in, and also the papers in a criminal application against the defendant for perjury, arising therefrom, were put in to show what the defendant had then stated; and a Mr. Charles Crossley to a certain extent corroborated the plaintiff’s evidence. The defendant asserted that he had ( paid the defendant in full, and produced certain books containing entries of the transaction ; but as thej* did not agree, and appeared to have been tampered with, after a severe cross-examination, the case was stopped, and judgment given for the plaintiff. Friday, July 26. Jeffares v. Warnes This was an action partly on a builder’s bill and partly on an hotel bill, to which the defendant pleaded a set off exceeding the amount claimed for work done and services rendered by himself and wife. Mr. Thomas Jeffares, the plaintiff, and landlord of the Crown Hotel, Napier, proved having been been employed in erecting the defendant’s house, and having lodged and boarded him for 18s. and his wife for 10s, per week ; and he claimed £35 155., after giving credit for certain admitted accounts contra. For the defence, it was alleged that the builder’s account was excessive ; and as to charge for boarding the wife, it was asserted that the claim was discharged by her services. The defendant, his wife, and servant, and several carpenters were called to prove this case ; and after considering his judgment, His Honor eventually decided for the plaintiff' for £lB 7s. Mr. Allen appeared for the plaintiff, and Sir. B. Taylor for defendant. Houeyman v. Fitzgerald. This was an action < brought by Stephen Honeyman, a builder, against Mr. T. H. Fitzgerald, for the balance of account due to him under his contract for erecting the defendant's steam mill at Napier, and the claim was for £56. The defendant pleaded that the work was so carelessly done as to be useless : and he paid into Court £25. Mr. Allen for the plaintiff ; Mr. vYilson for defendant. The case was one of an uninteresting nature, except to the parties concerned, and occupied a considerable time, and at the close of the day was adjourned for some further particulars.

Saturday, July 27. This morning the above case was arranged by the defendant paying AT 5 more and costs. Worgan v. Charlton and Hutchinson. His Honor this morning gave judument in tnis cause, and alter carefully going through the evidence, and adverting to the authorities on the subject, declined to make the alteration prayeu, aim uisiuissed the application, but without costs. Stapleton v. Riddell and another.

This was a case brought before his Honor by consent, in which the plaintiff sought to enforce a contract contained in two letters, in one of which the defendants had offered him =£2ooo to determine the partnership subsisting between them, and in the other of which he had accepted their offer, but which they had subsequently declined to carry out. The defendants pleaded that the arrangement was in contravention of their art ides of partnership ; that they had been surprised into it; and that as to the defendant Walter Riddell he had not signed the letter. Mr. Allen, for the plaintiff, entered into the facts at considerable length, and argued that the contract set up by the letters was a new contract based on a fresh consideration, and if fair, could not be impeached by the articles ; and as to want of signature, he contended that if he could show that'the defendant Walter knew of the letter, and assented to its contents, his signature was unnecessary, the letter being signed by the other defendant in their joint names ; and he called the plaintiff and Mr. R. Riddell. Mr. Wilson, for the defence, relied on the articles, and on absence of the defendant Walter’s signature.

His Honor too time to consider Ins iud"ment.