Resident Magistrate's Court.

Marlborough Express, Volume III, Issue 138, 3 October 1868, Page 5

Resident Magistrate's Court.

BLENHElM— Saturday, Sept. 28, 1868. [Before S. L. Muller, Esq., R.M.] \ VENIMOBE V. NIXON AND SWEBNET. Mr. Turton appeared for the plaintiff. Vincent Carey Venimore deposed that he had to receive £3 1 Os. Bd. from defendants for work and labour done, which was due and unpaid. [Mr. Nelson, who appeared for the defence, would admit the accuracy of the sum stated.] By Mr. Nelson : The document you produce is in my writing, and it is a receipt

for an order on Mr. Gorrie, which I received from plaintiffs, and have not yet returned to them. Gave plaintiffs notice by telling Nixon, whom I met in the street. Gorrie did not say it was not correct, but he would not give me cash. I was not due that amount to Gorrie. I should be due to him on October Ist.

Mr. Turton objected that the evidence was not admissible, as it applied to other transactions.

Mr. Nelson insisted that the evidence bore strongly on the case. The Court ruled that the examination should be proceeded with. Examination continued: Saw Nixon in the street near the Post-office, after I saw Gorrie the first time. Did not tell him again after I saw Gorrie the second time, nor see him again. Nixon promised that in the event of Gorrie not paying me, he would give me the money at once. This statement is not an afterthought; it was when the order was first given me. Did not inform plaintiffs after Gorrie said he would accept it, nor inform them that he had not done so. I have the order still. I went at once and took out the summons. I met Nixon in the street. Yes, it was after the first time I went to Gorrie ; have not seen Nixon since. The judgment due by me to Gorrie for £2O, is due on October Ist. I offered to allow him to credit me £1 13s. for the first instalment. I was not indebted to him at that time, and refuse to say whether I owe him any money. Mr. Turton interfered on behalf of his client.

The Court again ruled that the examination was in order.

Examination continued : 1 was indebted to him £2O, which was payable by instalments at easy intervals, at my own request. Had already given him an order for nearly half the amount. I am trying to make the Court understand that I had given him an order for part the amount; it was before the judgment; it is likely to be paid at the beginning of October. Mr. Helson said he would apply for a nonsuit on the ground that plaintiff had received an order, for which he gave a receipt, and had not informed defendants that it had not been honored. He would, however, go on with the case.

John Hixon deposed that on September 11 th he gave plaintiff an order on Gorrie, after giving him the alternative of one on on Griffiths, who also owed him money, and he chose the former. Last Wednesday met him near the Post-office, when lie said Gorrie woqld not accept the order. I said there must be some mistake, and 1 would see him, but, being busy, have not seen him since ; heard no more till I got the summons. Gorrie told me to give plaintiff an order on him. We had a conversation about Yenimoro and some Oddfellows’ business. He never asked me for the money after I gave the order until I got the summons.

Ry Mr. Turton: He asked me before I gave the order. James Gorrie, builder, deposed that about a fortnight ago lust witness informed him that he owed some money to plaintiff. I requested him to give an order for the amount, and said I would be glad if he would give me the order. Yenimore did present it, but not till some time after. When he did so, I had already placed an account due to me by him in Mr. Hclson’s hands for recovery, consequently I told him 1 could not deal with it until judgment in that case had been given. He did not make any remark that 1 remember. When he confessed judgment he agreed to give me some orders, including the one in question, which was to go in liquidation of the amount due, and the rest by instalments. It was perfectly understood. When I offered to take it, 1 wrote out a receipt, and he then said he only wanted a receipt for part of it, and the rest in cash. Hixon came to me and said he could not understand how it was.

By Mr. Turton: A judgment was pending when he presented the Order. He was sued for the amount, and, as the proceedings were pending, I declined to inteifere with it. He agreed to give me that order and another towards the debt. The first instalment under the judgment was not due.

Mr. Turton said that consequently nothing was due! Mr. Nelson pointed out that the evidence distinctly showed that the orders were taken into account by last witness in agreeing to accept a confession of the debt. Mr. Turton addressed the Court, arguing that until the judgment was given by the Court, nothing was due to Mr. Gorrie. .. -The Court said it appeared that the debt was due, ‘and an order was given and presented, but refused the first time. The plaintiff ought to have returned the order to defendants when refused, which he had not done. The judgment would, be a nonsuit-. Mr. Turton asked leave to appeal. The Court informed him that an appeal

could not be granted under £5. Defendant would be allowed £2 Bs. costs. COOPER V. WORKMAN’. Mr. Nelson applied to have the case adjourned for a fortnight.—Granted.