Resident Magistrate's Court. Foxton.

Manawatu Herald, Volume III, 5 March 1891, Page 2

Resident Magistrate's Court. Foxton.

,«. (Before Major Take, R.M.) Wednesday, 4th March. civil cases. E. Osborne v. W. Walbutton— - Claim £2 18s 6d. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount and costs 6s. A. Musgrove v. G. J. Sandbrook — Claim £8, 1,4s 6d. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount and costs Bs. A. Musgrove v. W. Sandbrook — riaiin £2 5s 6d. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount and costs Bs. A. L. Langley v. Gray and Birchley. Mr Ray said that it had been agreed with Mr Hankins to adjourn to next Court day. George Coley v. Thomas Seymour — Claim £5, on a dishonoured cheque. Mr Ray for plaintiff. Judgment for amount and costs 6s, mileage 10s, solicitor's fee 21s. John Harris v. F. Robinson — Claim £1 4s 9d. Mr Ray for plaintiff. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount and costs 6s. F. De Ridder v. Amos Burr — Claim £2 2s 6d. Mr Ray for plaintiff, Mr Guy for defendant. Mr Ray said the action was brought on an IOU of the defendant's. The IOU is addressed in full to Mr De Ridder, and signed by Amos Burr. F. De Ridder deposed to the IOU being in Burr's hand writing. By Mr Guy-Left Nathan & Co.'s employ about 18 months ago ; have seen the cheque (produced) drawn by John Burr ; had sued John Burr for this cheque; had given five pound notes out of my own money for this cheque ; on 18th December, 1888, John Burr asked for the loan of £5 ; said he would lend if Burr gave him his cheque ; the cheque produced is the one ; the money had nothing to do with Nathan & Co. J. T. Ray deposed that he was plaintiffs solicitor, and he saw Amos Burr sign the IOU in his office on 10th March, 1890. By Mr Guy— He knew what the IOU was given for, being in satisfaction of the balance in an action brought by De Ridder against the defendant's son ; the amount was made up at the time the defendant signed it, and the figures were on the back of his brief (produced) ; the case never went into Court, having been withdrawn at the request of Amos Burr, and he came to witness to settle the matter ; he had charged Burr a guinea though the case did not go into Court ; letter from Amos Burr to witness was produced and read, it was to the following effect : " 1 think we made a mistake in the IOU, it should be £2 18s Id." He replied to Burr by letter, stating that there was no mistake in the IOU, and quoted particulars. Mr Guy, before commencing a defence, said Burr's son had been doing business with Nathan & Co. ; the plaintiff left their employ in June, 1889 ; Amos Burr will swear that he agreed to pay £4 in cash, which he did, and to give an IOU for £1 12s ; in settling up he gave an IOU for £8 2s 6d ; his eyesight is not good, and he wrote the letter already read. He called] Amos Burr deposed that John Burr was summoned for £5 he agreed to pay it if the summons was withdrawn ; he paid £4 on account, and was asked to give an IOU for the balance ; he understood that he would have to pay costs ; objected to pay Mr Ray a guinea ; he did not look at the IOU when he signed it, as he had not his glasses ; he was given to understand that it was for the balance, with the <~ourt expenses ; he offered to sell a horse in November to the plaintiff for a sum between £4 and £5 ; the horse was worth £5, but he charged only £4 10s ; it was delivered to plaintiff. By Mr Ray— About March 21st he paid £i ; paid the £4 on thi Mmc d»y a« Vie signed the IOU s it wan

paid with two cheques of Osborne'fl, amounting to &1 ; when at the office Bay did not tell him what he Would have to pay (brief produced) ; did not hear the figures read out to him ; signed the IOU in Ray's office ; did receive a reply from him in answer to the one witness wrote; plaintiff was not in R.M. stove when he sued witness's son; in November, when plaintiff asked for payment of the IOU he never said that the IOU was wrong ; the plaintiff had said that Mr Kay had misled both, in the IOU and in the collection of the money ; he was referring to Bay's illegally obtaining the £7 ; the receipt (produced) is ihe balance of £8 out of the £7 received ) plaintiff did apply for payment of the IOU; had told him he would have to wait his convenience ; had always intended to pay it out of wool ; plaintiff had said that he would pay witness £1 in addition to the IOU, and any further balance ; he refused to pay for any of John Burr's debts ; never told plaintiff it would be all right ; it was never agreed to sell the horse for £1, but said the boy could pay £1 on account ; never mentioned money matters to plaintiff's son ; he had only asked if he would have a gelding or a filly ; he had asked the boy if he had brought the £1 with him. F. De Bidder, recalled, said he had asked defendant for a settlement of the IOU several times during the 12 months ; he promised to pay it as soon as he could ; had told Burr that Ray would want another 10s to recover the amount if it was not paid quickly ; Burr told witness that he would pay the money very soon, and he had then said his son owed him 20s for dancing nearly two years ago, and wanted to see if it could not be settled by letting his son have a horse, and the boy would give him JB1 ; this would Jbe a horse to the value of £2 ; Burr had said that he would be \ery glad to settle matters that way. A difficulty arose about the production of a receipt for the horse, which was not forthcoming.' The R.M. stated that this was necessary, and that the case must be adjourned. Mr Ray claimed for judgment on the IOU. The R.M. said that he must give judgment on the IOU for £2 2s 6d, costs 15s, witness ss.