Untitled

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 16, Issue 901, 24 December 1870, Page 2

Christmas Holidays.—While wishing oar readers " The compliments of the season," we have to announce that, in ordei to afford our staff an opportunity of sharing in the festivities of the day, there will be no issue of the Hawke's Bay Times on Monday next, 26th December Resident Magistrate's Court.— Yesterday Paora Torotoro applied for a new trial in the case Peacock v. Toro toro, on the ground that the summons had never been served. The plaintiffs, Messrs Peacock & Co., who were represented by Mr Maddock, opposed the application. All other witnesses having been ordered to leave the court, Paora was sworn, and deposed as before that the summons in this case had never been.served upon him. He admitted the debt, but had instructed Mr Maney to pay it for him, and thought he had done so. In answer do the magistrate, he said that he knew Constable Raven but had never received from him any summons* from Messrs Peacock.—Ohas. Raven, sworn, deposed : I am District Constable at Meanee. I know the plaintiffs and defendant perfectly well. On the 27th Ma-v last f went to defendant's house with a summons, similar to the one produced. 1 was told that he was in town. ! came to Napier, and saw him in Mr Abraham's shop. I waited till he had completed his purchase, and then called him outside and placed the paper in his hand, saying, "Here is a summons from Mr Peacock." He took it as if he was quite accustomed to such things, and put it in his pocket, saying, " All right." I came immediately to the Court, and made an am,davit of the service of. the summons. In answer to the Magistrate, witness said—There are other natives named Paul, but I know of no other Paul Torotoro. At any rate, defendant is the man I served. —On this evidence being translated to defendant, he several times reiterated that no summons had been served upon him as stated—if he had been summoned, he would have come.—F. Sutton, deposed: I am a storekeeper in Napier, and have known defendant for the past ten years. In May last he came into my shop, and told me he had received a summons from Messrs. Peacock, and that he would get Mr Maney to pay the money. I believe Mr Maney had dealings with him at that time about land. From his lather excited manner, I concluded he had just been served. He told me the same filing, I should think, on a dozen different occasions. Several times he told me he had not brought his gig into town, as he believed a warrant was out against hini, and he feared it might be seized. —On this being translated to defendant by the interpreter,. Mr Hamlin, the witness withdrew the term " excited," as liable to convey more than he intended. Defendant put a number of questions, all of which related to business transactions, and had no reference to the matter before the court. —De fendant once more repeated that if he had been summoned he would have come.—The magistrate deferred his judgment till 4.30 p.m. explaining to the native that he wished to find a precedent to guide him in deciding the case.—Paora, who seemed relieved by this information, replied " J£apai"

to the decision being deferred to so late an hour, our reporter was unavoidably absent when it was given. We are informed that the application was granted-*ron what grounds we cannot say, as it was based solely on the assumed fact of non-service of the summons.] —We must again hold over our report of the other cases.