Resident Magistrate's Court Foxton.

Manawatu Herald, 5 April 1889, Page 2

Resident Magistrate's Court Foxton.

Wednesday, Apbtl 5, 1889. (Before Major Tuke, R.M.) T. Westwood v. W. G. Trask. Mr Hitzherbert for plaintiff. Mr A. S. Baker for defendant. The claim was for £3 and 10s interest. MiBaker applied for stay of execution for 7 days. Plaintiff agreed. Judg ment for amount and costs 6s. P Deßidder v. Arthur Kirk— \ii Baker for defendant, '■laim £18 12s Id. Defendant offered os c week. Judgment for the atnomit t > be paid at the rate of os a week H. H. McDonald v. AUou M«Donald— claim £2 15s sd. Mr Fit/ herbert for plaintiff. Mr A; 8. Bake for. defendant, i

Hector McDonald— Stated he paid a claim of the R. M. Store for a sum of £23 7g Bel. Judgment was obtained for balance of account unpaid. I paid it under pr" jtest. The "oods were supplied to all the family. They >7 ere general necessaries. I was living at i ome at the me tlie goods were obtained, yearly aU the. family Wetfe at home. AfteT I left home these godda had to be pain. It was about 13th December 1887 that I was" sued. My mother ids paid he* shares the others have not. Cross examined by Mr. Baker — No one appeared for me When judg ment was obtained against me. 1 think the B. M. Store was wrong in suing me, it should have been against the estate. My mother is the executrix of the estate. I was only manager. I have not rendered accounts to the estate, except what Was asked me. The goods should have been paid for out of proceeds of the estate. I believe we were all in partnership. I had control of all the affairs for 8 or 9 years. The debt was incurred fully a year before I withdrew. , I received and paid all monies out of the estate. I had no private estate. I sold Prince Charlie an entire aud received money, aod paid it away. I have received private monies which I have put into the estate. The bailiff seized a piano of mine and sold it which paid the debt. The piano was mine, because it was in my private house. My house might have been built out of the estate. I got the piano from Wellington. It did not come direct to mine. I was not married when the piano was bought. None cf my sisters could play the piano four years ago. Ido not know that the piano was paid for by my money or the estates. * In 1886 I had many ways of making private money, one by buying stock and selling again. I have managed the estate for 9 years. I did not receive all the monies.

/ Ec examined — The accounts were all settled under deed. All I got out of the estate was the piano. The' trustees take their share. The piano was reckoned as mine. Mr Baker stated that the father died 11 years ago. The widow was the executrix. The plaintiff took ■he high hand and took all management. When he gave up the man agement it was found he had left the estate £2400 in arrear for rent. In 18 months the two younger brothers have recovered and paid off the debts on the estate. This action is simp'y a question of account. If this money is paid the plaintiff could apply for he repayment of every sum he has previously paid. The piano was bought for the younger sister who could play well then, lit, the piano paid the debt, the plaintiff never paid for the piano, but the estate did. John McDonald — I am the younger brother of plaintiff. My brother Hector had all control up to 1888. He received all money for wool, stock, &c. Since I have ben managing the income has been £1500 a year. Previously it should have made £1000 a year. The expenses were very small, only for clothes and eatables. My brother Hector was to pay all accounts. About £2000 was owing for back rents when my brother left. He gave up all interest in consideration for what he owed. The only debt he told me about outside of the rent was a sum of £500, which was agreed to be left. I did not give him any release for other debts. I bought about £82 worth of sheep from the estate. He has not accounted to the estate for this sum. The piano was bought for one of my sisters who was in the convent. We all knew about the piano being bought, it was brought to the house where we all lived. My brother had no private means that I knew of. When my brotuer got married, he took the piano to his house. I never knew of it being given to him. My brother was never called on for a statement of accounts. I believe there are other outstanding accounts Since this debt was incurred he has received considerable sums of money, out of which he should have paid it. Cross examined by Mr Fitzherbert — When the piano was seized I bought it. I told you tha', if Hector I paid me £25 I would let him have it again. On 1\ h January 1888 my brother gave up management of the property. A'l the family takej equal shares except Hector Me Donald. The estate was in debt whe i my father died.

Allan McDonald — None of us have received any large sums of money from Hector McDonald The piano was bought for one of my siste s. My brother Hector was not married for 4 or 5 years after the piano was purchased. Hector never asked me for my share in the piano. I was 21 years old in July 1886. Cross examined by Mr Fitzherbert — I do not know if my mother consented to Hector talcing the piano over to his house, with other furniture. It was there till the piano was seized. Hector McDonald recalled -It is said in the set off that you rece ved £82. I used it to release liabilities of the estate. I have never been asked to account for any money. The £82 was paid away for debts due by the estate. The estate at my father's death was in debt, very near to £700. I did my best. It would not carry 2500 sheep then, it now carries near 10,000 sheep. I have

left all. V "..'■ Cross examined by Mr Baker — It was arranged that al! furniture in my house, and what W'<s in my mother's house should be ours . R ■■-■ was ar anged because it was never disputed. ! Mr Baker argued that the oase was a question that could not to® brought before this court, being a question of accounts,, which couA<l pnly be heard by -the Supreme - I M> Fitzherbert— Staged, that the- .-f. Court had nothing to do frith the esr tate. The family were merely livingtogether. Either side could h.ave applied to Supreme Court for account* to be taken. It is obvious that an arrangement was made by which, both parties were to take what^^h had got. The deed made 6 was the first time any definit^&rrangement was made. Plaintiff showed he had paid £8 out of tJie estate on this account. In the absence of any covenant in the deed,, the estate is liable to pay their shares. The brother purchased the piano when it was seized, instead of entering an interpleader summons, showing thar the brother at any rater believed the piano to have been the plaintiffs. The claim is for monies he has paid since he had left the estate, and of which the defendants have received their share. Until an account has been rendered the defendants are liable for every sum of money paid by the plaintiff. The court gave judgment for the amount claimed and costs 6s, mile • age 15s, Solicitor's fee' 21s. T he remaitfder of the K- M - Court proceedings will appear in OW issue.