RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, FOXTON.

Manawatu Herald, Volume II, Issue 22, 7 November 1879, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, FOXTON.

Wednesday, November 5. (Before R. Ward, Esq., R.M.) CIVIL CASES. F. K. Crowther v. John Smith. ~ Claim £10 upon a dishonoured cheque. Plaintiff deposed to having seeu de fendant sign the cheque, which had beeu duly presented and dishonoured. — Judgment ex parte for amount and costs, -Itis. Thos. Rawlinson v. J. A. Perreau and others. — Claim ,£l3 5s sd, for wages as engineer. Mr Staite appeared for pluintiff, and said the case was similar to that tried at last Court. Defendant denied all liability. - Plaintiff, being sworn, deposed that the account rendered was. fair and reason able ; he was engagejflby Simpson ou behalf of the company. In cross--examination, he admitted that defendant had had nothing to do with his engagement, but said tliat after the work had gone on some time, defend ant asked him how the mill was getting on, and bping told " Very well," answered " All right !" lie therefore concluded that defendant was a partner ; but found out afterwards for certain that he was. — Defendant said he had no power to interfere in the management of the mill, being a sleepiug partner ; therefore he claimed the summons should have been served

upon Simpson, the principal of the firm and manager of the party. — His Worship said* be pympathised with defendant; buc that could nofc help him ; he had intended to protect himself, but evidently had not succeeded in doing so. If defendant had takeu legal advice, he would have probably secured himself. — Judgment for dSfnonnt and costs, £1 6s.

Chas. Howe v. C. Collins. — Claim £7 ls, balanoe of account. Defendant disputed the correct noss of the account upon which he was summoned, and after hearing . the evidence of toe parties judgment was given for £8 15s, and costs, Bs.

* JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. ( Hefore R. Ward, Ksq, E.M., and E. 8. Thynne, Esq., J P.)

A judgment summons haviug been taken our, againsfc Wm. Osborne by Chas. Ho wo,

The Clerk of tlie Court informed the Bench thaf Osborne was at present in gaol at Wanganui, owing to a judgment summons taken oufc against him by W. J. & F. Loudon. I'lie-m-SJitei'.was therefore leffc over. J. A. Peireau v. Tlw&. Jinbinsou. — Claim £27 17s, upon a judgment summons. Mr Staite, for defendant, said the previous judgmeut had been obtained iii defendant's absence. His client was unable to pay the amount. Defendant, being sworn, suid he had worked for a long time at the Paiaka mill, at a great luss, and had only had work for 16 days at 10s per diem ; he would pay £3 per month, but could nofc do more. Plaintiff endeavoured to show that defendant had received moneys from Macarthy on his (plain, tiff's) account, 'but had nofc paid them .over. This defendant denied, saying he had received only £10, but had on leg-il advice surrendered the remainder, to save the trouble of going to the Supreme Court. An order was made for payment of £3 per month, the first payment one month ftom date ; in default two months' imprisonment in "Wanganui Gaol. INTERPLEADER SUMMONS. Samuel Tansley, bailiff of the Foxton Court, applied for an interpleader to call on Nathaniel Bartlett to show cause why certain property secured to him by John A. Perreau, under bill of sale, should nofc be sold in satisfaction of a judgment obtained by W. J. & F. Loudon against J. A. Perreau. Mr Staite appeared in support of Mr Loudon, and Mr Bartlett conducted his^ own case. Samuel Tansley staled that on his seizing certain property, Mr Bartlett claimed them under bill of sale. Nathaniel Bartlett, residing in Foxton, deposed — I claim to be owner of some property seized by the bailiff of the Court, now in possession of Mr J. A Perreau ; the proporty is scheduled in the agreement, which is a bill of sale ; it was drawn up in October; I lent Perreau money at different times ; I have lent hini altogether £100 ; I keep no accounts ; I lent him £75 at , one time, and £25 afc another ; I have received nono of it in return ; the £25 was lent within tho last three months; the £75 was lent about four months ago ; the list the bailiff h s produced of goods seized, comprises some of the things secured to me ; the £25 was lent over two months ago ; it was to be returned in three moy ths ; the three months was not up when he gave the bill of salo ; the £75 I lent him in cash ; the £25 I gavo him on a P.N. ; when he asked me for the £25, I refused to give him any more without secur ity ; he then gave mo the bill of sale ; he came to me about it, and I*t<dd him he must give me the security for my money ; the horses, cows, &c, were handed over to me ; I went and looked at them ; the property i.a fair security for the money. By Mr Staite— The P.N. is not actually due ; it made up the £100 ; when the bill was given, no money was lent ; it was a fair consideration ; I got the bill of sale on 16th October ; Perreau came to me and offered the bill of salo ; he never told me cuses wero coining on ;■-• I knew ifc ; 1 did not receive the bill of sale when I gavo tho P.N., because Perreau and I always have done business together ;we came hero together ; 1 believe he has landed property; 1 paid £6 for the bill of salo ; 1 did not accept the bill of sale when the money wae lent, because I thought him an honest man ; ho told me he could not pay me back the money, and off. -red the security ; I have had no laud dealings with "him ; I did not ask landed security ; I was satisfied with what I got ; 1 don't remember Perreau showing me a letter from Loudon, dated the day of the bill of sale, claiming £39 ; I do nofc know that Perreau has lent £800 on mortgage to Dr Eockstrow. J. A. Perreau deposed — I gave a bill of sale to Mr Bartlett on October 16 ; I had borrowed money from Mr Bartlett amounting to £100 ; there may be "a small rnargiu on either side ; I cannot say whether the sum was exactly £100; the bill of sale was intended to secure that amoun tlj I offered him the security because 1 thought he needed it; the security was given because he indirectly asked for it ; I did nofc consider him in danger ; the 'bill of salo was not given to securo Bartlett againsfc any judgment that might be recorded ; I had no idea of any claims ; the claim by Loudon against me was sent to mo when I was^at Palmerston ; I acted for^ Mr Bartlett, under instruction

from hini, in getting the bill q£ sale drawn by* Mr Hawkins; no direct intimation was made to me of a claim, likely to be amide against me •„ I heard a rumour^o thai effect, but it had nothing whatever to. do with my giving the bill of saje ; tii#P. N. was discounted in my favor; Mr Bartlett has not asked me for. ifc. By Mr* Staite— l had no positiveknowledge that I might be liable for th^mill debts; I might have had a suspicion ; I will nofc swear that Mr Hawkins told me I might be liable ; as a matter of fact he did advise me I was liable ; I gavo him instructions on October 16 ; it was made out that day; T waited in Palmerston whilst it rcas prepared ; I do not know when Bartlett signed it ; it purports to be signed on the day of making; Mr Bartlett said he wanted security ; I went to him and offered the bill of sale, because he was under the im-press-on he should have the security; his statement may be trua that I proposed the bill of sale ; I wish the Court to uuderstand my motive was to protect Mr Bartlett ; he was to protect fche P.N. whon it became due ; I wUI not swear there was no arrangement l '-.made tQjjrotect the P.N. when due ; I consider riiySeiY ~&_ffrfo ;—J^hsd^_.^_, money sometimes myself; I lent to Simpson & Co £30, but did not pay stiffly ; I got a full share in profits ; lowe about £100 to Mr Bartlett; I have repaid him moneys borrowed, but havo never had a settlement; the £75 and £25 represent til money transactions at present, within a . trifle; I did not pay Mr Hawkins; I have since paid him £6 in notes ; I don't think it fair I should be compelled to say where I got the money. [.. The Court said Mr Perreau must answer the question. Witness continued- -I shall have to pay Mr Bartlett the money; I don't remember where I got it from ; I swear I had no intention of avoid- ' ing ppssible liability ; I don't think I could havo given landed security, without great expense;. I have iot £800 lent on mortgage to Dr. Rockstrow ; I may have a portion of that amount, bufc I don't think I should anssvor. I>y the Court — I signed the bill t>f . s iie on. Oct. 16 ; T gave Mr Hawkius tho £0 on my last visit to Palmerstun ; so far as I know, Mr Bartlett m.'iy Is avo signed the bill of sale a week after. ' •_ His Worship said Mr Perreau*^ signature was attested, but not Mrv — Bar left's, which might have beeri^ made after the filing. Mr Staite argued thafc the bill of*^| sale was invalid «n._ three grounds— " first, that it was given voluntaiily by Mr Perreau, whereas by law it must have been asked for by the person to whom ifc was given ; second, ifc was given fur a past consideration, no moneys having passed between the parties at the time, whilst it was a legal necessity that consideration iv some form should be exchanged ; third, the consideration stated in the bill of sale was not strictly correct, as it mentioned the sum of £100, whereas Perreau admitted the amount ho owed Mr Bartlett might be a little over or a little under that amount. He criticised strongly the action of Mr Per.reau in haviug entered into the mill partnership expecting to get so large , a return for fche small advance he made, and asked the Court to believe that the bill of sale was intended by .Mr Perreau to place beyond the palet •ofthe law his personal property, as he was afraid .of beiug declared liable for th'j debts of Robinson and party. 4f He also referred to the fact that' Mr Perreau admitted holding a mortgage on property held by Dr Rockstrow, and said it was welPkno^a-'-hft^je^*. sessed considerable landed property which could have been given as security to Mr Hartlelfc, had he been so disponed. The Court said that it had heard carefully tho evidence. The applica* tion was for au interpleader summons under sections 71 and 72 of "The Ilesident Magistrate's Act, 1867." It appeared from the evidence that a bill of sale had been given by John Alfred Perreau to Nathaniel Bartlett on property lately in possession -of * the former. Perreau had been by that Court declared a debtor at the suit of Mr Loudon, and the bailiff had seized certain articles, to satisfy the debt. Mr Bartlett had come forward and claimed to be the owner of the property under a bill of sale dated October 16. The Act required thafc consideration must pass at the time of the bill of sale being made, and that to make it good the actual amount must be stated. Having * hoard tho evidence the Court were of opinion that no consideration passed atthetime of malung-^he-bilL-aiS. sale ; therefore it could not be held valid;^" The Court were decidedly of opinion * that there must be an exchange of consideration at the time of making the bill; but none had taken place, either in goods or money. The Court would therefore rule that tisuJ* bill of sale was null and void, an&\ the bailiff might go on with the sale of the property. Mr Staite applied for costs. ? His Worship allowed professional fee of £2 2s, to be paid by Mr Bartlett. Tho Court then adjourned.