Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

A Curious Law Case.

A somewhat remarkable case was heard by Mr Martin, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court on Monday, when Mrs Agnes Twist and her son, Thomas W. Twist, sued George W. Smart, pawnbroker, for the sum of £12 15s 6d. The evidence of the plaintiffs was that T. W. Twist, being in want of money to pay for his defence in a charge of forgery in the Supreme Court, went to Smart for the purpose of procuring a loan, Smart said he would go to Twist's house and look at the furniture he offered as a security, and having done so he agreed to advance £21 15s 6d. When Twist went to the defendant to get the money the latter discovered that Mr Skerrett was to appear for the defence, and objected to any of his money going into that gentleman's pocket. Ultimately Mrs Twist came in, and the money was advanced on her giving a promissory note, and on her son giving his goods as security. That arrangement was carried out, an advance of £8 was paid over, and £1 subsequently. Defendant then stopped payment, and the present proceeding resulted. For the defence, Smart said he agreed to advance the money only on condition that Mr Skerretfc had absolutely nothing whatever to do with the case, and the loan was accepted on those terms ; that Mr Hadfield was to be employed to defend Twist, that he advanced the sum of £8, that he was liable to Mr Hadfield for £10 10s ; that he (Smart) was to be paid £1 Is for valuing the furniture before the money was advanced, that £1 was to be paid down by Twist for interest, and that he (Smart) had to pay £1 4s for completing the Bill of sale. His Worship held that defendant was entitled to deduct £1 4s for completing the bill of sale, and £4 4s money due to Mr Hadfield ; and that plaintiffs were entitled to recover £7 7s 6d. Judgment would therefore go for plaintiffs for that amount, with £1 16s costs. Mr Skerrett appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr G. Hutchison for the defendant.—N.Z. Times.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/MH18940728.2.17

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Manawatu Herald, 28 July 1894, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
360

A Curious Law Case. Manawatu Herald, 28 July 1894, Page 3

A Curious Law Case. Manawatu Herald, 28 July 1894, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert