TE KUITI S.M. COURT.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VII, Issue 536, 25 January 1913, Page 5

TE KUITI S.M. COURT.

THURSDAY, 23rd JANUARY, 1913. . Before Mr E. Rawson, S.M. Judgment went for plaintiff by default in the following case: McDonald v. McDonald, £lB 13s 6d, costs 3s 6d; Wells v. McMahon, costs 17s; Advances Department v. Saunders. £ll 9s 6d—£2; Harton (as liquidator for Te Kuiti Gas Co.) v. Cunningham, £7 18s 9d—23s 6d; same v. Dudley, 32s 6d Nicholls v. Warburton, l£3 9s 4d—--10s; Earl, Kent and Howarth v. Reid, £2 19s 6d—29s; Hardy v. Tawhana, £3l 10s—£4 6s 6d; Green and Colebrook v. Saunders, £ll 0s 9d—£l 10s; Rundle v. Wakeman, £2 4 S _loa; Julian v. Bolton, £5 6s—23s 6d; McCorkindale v. Coburn, £l9 13s 6d —£2 14s 6d; same v. Gormenson, £22 lis 6d—£3 9s; Nicnolls v. Kennedy, £5 7s 3d—2ss 6d. Judgment Summonses. Asplin V. Coburn, £l6 0s 3d, order made to pay forthwith or in default 14 days' imprisonment.—The King v. Hallmond, £6 7s, order to pay or in default seven days' imprisonment.— Mac Donald v. Hallmond, £lO 6s 3d, order made or in default 14 days* imprisonment.—G. and C. v. Pua and Co., £6 6s Bd, order made or in default seven days' imprisonment, order to be suspended as long as defendant pays 15s per month.—Same v. Wi Pua, £ls 8s sd, order made, ■ame to be suspended on defendant paying 15s per month.—G. and C. v. Wi Kio, £22 2s lid, amount to be paid by instalments of £2 per month. —G. and C. v. H. Rawiri, £23 Is order made, same to be suspended as long as defendant pays 30s par month.—G. and C. v. Paul, £l2 3s sd, ordered to pay £1 per month.—Borth Bros. v. Hallmond, order made for £l3 2s 9d, to be suspended if 10s per month is paid by defendant. A DISPUTED DEAL. Standish v. Atchison.—Claim £75, balance of purchase money in a land deal. Mr Finlay appeared for plain- , tiff, and Mr Howarth for defendant. It appeared from the evidence that the parties had a land deal in which properties were exchanged, and when titles were secured the amount of £575 was to be paid by defendant to plaintiff. The plaintiff desiring to obtain money quickly approached the defendant on the matter, and it was arranged that defendant should endorse a promissory note for plaintiff and that £75 should be deducted from the amount due. Subsequently defendant requested* plaintiff not to negotiate the promissory note and plaintiff acceded to the request. The plaintiff claimed that, as the promissory note was not negotiable he was entitled to the £75, which had been deducted.

Defendant denied that the amount was deducted in consequence of the promissory note being given and put in a document in which plaintiff acknowledged the amount of defendant's indebtedness to be £SOO.

His Worship, in delivering judgment, said it was a case of oath aaginst oath, but the document which defendant had produced was couched in plain language, and could not be disregarded. He pointed out that when defendant had requested the promissory note to be held back plaintiff should have claimed immediately the additional £75. Plaintiff had not fully established his case, and would be non-suited.