Magistrate's Court, Foxton.

Manawatu Herald, 9 May 1896, Page 2

Magistrate's Court, Foxton.

(Before R. L. Stanford, Esq., S.M.)

Thubsday, May 7.

CIVIL CASES. Edward Kerby v. Arthur H. Herbert.— Claim 5166 12a 6d. Mr Hurley appeared fqr the plaintiff. I) fondant \va3 unrepresented bat sent a letter to say he had applied to have the case removed to the Supreme Court. The S.M. said he could not hear the case to-day, but would adjourn on terms that all the coats £8 19s, solicitor's fee £9 6s, and witnesses £1 16s 6d were paid. T. F. Gibson, rate collector, v. Mrg B. Cawstoo.— Claim £12 12a 4d. Case adjourned to 3rd June to allow of evideuce being taken in Dnnedin on 21st May. J. A. Perreau v. J. A. Anderson. —Claim £53 4s 9d. Counter claim, £21 6s 6d. Mr Fitzherbert for plaintiff and Mr Hurley for defendant. Mr Fitzherbert said he would ask for a nonsuit on the claim, and Mr Hurley asked for a nonsuit on the counter claim. The costs were arranged between the parties. John Perry v. T. Mitchell.— Claim £5 Bs. Mr Wallace for plaintiff. Case adjourned till next Court day for evidence to be taken in Wellington. A. S. Bias v. F. Jones.— Claim £1 15s 6d. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount and costs 6s. A. 8. Bias v. Wi Eatene and wife. —Claim £8 5s lOd. Mr Cramp for plaintiff. No appearanoe of defend* ant. Judgment for amount, less £1 paid in, and costs 89s, Interpreter's fee 6s, solicitor's fee ss. Thos. Weßtwpod & Co. v. W. Aldridge.— Claim £i 19a Bd. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount by default and ooafca 93. George Rogers v. E. Giesen.— Claim £9 9s 7d. Mr Richmond for plaintiff. George Rogers deposed — He sued for the value of a horse, £7, cold to defendant. Did not push defendant as he had then just started a flaxmili wilh Osborne. Cross-examined by Mr Richmond —Gave order for receipt of money to Mr Williams. T. P. Williams deposed— He produced an order on Mr Giesen for £7 dated July, 1889. He also put in correspondence admitting price of horse. The order has never been paid. Cross-examined by Mr Richmond —The horse was bought 'lor Mr Giesen'g private use. There was no arrangement to pay interest. Giesen has tried to put responsibility on Osborne. Mr Richmond said the defence was that the horse was bought for partnership purposes. Giesen left the firm in March, 1890. Later the firm failed and Giesen offered horse, saddle and bridle to Deputy Off. Ass., but there being a charge for paddocking the D.O.A. refused to take it. S. Giesen deposed— He purchased the horse on behalf of the firm of Osborne, Giesen & Co. Williams told him he bad an order on him and he replied " all right." If he badpresented it he would have endorsed it Osborne, Giesen & Co. The D.O.A. refused horee as he did not think it would fetch the cost of the paddocking. Cross-examined by G. Bogem— There was nothing said at the time of buying the horse about the firm. Mr Richmond claimed the Statate of Limitations. The S.M. said if Mr Richmond and his client relied entirely on the Statute he did not see how he could get beyond it, but it w«s a shabby defence. Rogers had a perfect right to sue for the horse to the one person to whom he sold it. The merits o the case was all one-sided. The S.M. allowed no coits, he did not approve of the defence. Hans Andreason v. George Neville. —Claim £18 19i 4d. Oonnter claim £17 Is. Mr Ray for plaintiff. Adjourned to Palmerston to the 18th inst, A. Kerr v. J. Anderson.— Claim £4 11s. Mr Ray for plaintiff and Mr Hurley for defendant. This was a case in which the flaxmill dispute figured largely. The S.M. decided that the plaintiff could not claim against Anderson but that he would have a good oaee against Perreau. Plaintiff nonsuited with costs 2«, solicitor's fee 21s, witnesses 10.*. Thoß. Westwood & Co. y. J.

Anderson.- Claim £11 9s 2d. Counter claim £4 Is 6d. Mr Hurley for defendant and Mr Moore for plaintiff. John Anderson, the defendant, deposed he sued the plaintiff for £4 Is6d. Anderson admitted after going through books that two loads had been charged in error. By Mr Moore : There had been a previous judgment by Westvvood against him and it had been paid and this account had not been ren-* dered as he had forgotten all about «<rrt. Charles Anderson deposed to the delivery of some of the wood. Thomas Westwood admitted receipt ot wood ; loads charged 12s 6d he was buying at 6s 6d ; the last wen one horse loads ; one load that came had only one horse. E. Westwood deposed to wood received. Judgment was given on counter claim for £2 10s. As to claim the judgment would be for amount claimed, less counter claim. Costs, 225. Richard Bros. v. Alexander Saun* ders and George Moßobsrts. —Claim £i 4s. Mr Wallace for plaintiff, Mr Ray for defendants. Herbert Richards deposed that he and his brother agreed to clear ten acres of flax more or less ; agreed to do it at 28s per acre ; Saunders fixed the price ; started on 21st January and worked to 11th February ; did 8 acres ; told Mcßobert they were not going to do any more as could not make wages ; signed an agreement on 4th February ; applied for payment on 12th March ; it was refused ; brother and himself measured the acreage ; were prepared to finish if he bad been forced to. Emile Richards deposed to arrangements made with Saunders ; had been grubbing on Motoa Estate before ; decided not to carry on ; Saucders said Mcßoberts would say, wont get any money ; went after and squared off the 8 acres ; left camp till Mcßoberts' contract was finished ; tried at Shannon to get someone to take up balance of contract. George Mcßoberts deposed— Had contract for clearing all the flax ; let plaintiffs ten acres ; contract was signed on 4th February ; nobody else threw up their contracts ; was out of pocket- on the contract through this job being thrown up. Mr Ray submitted there wa3 no case to answer. The S. M. agretr *.id lion^uited plaintiffs with solicitor s fee, 21s. James Koarke v. Buiri Rangiheua. - -Claim, £7 6s 2d. Mr Ray for defendant. James Roarke deposed he sued for 48 weeks and 5 day3* work at 10; a week making a total of £24 7s and credited him with cash and horses £17 Os lOd ; defendant disputed the amount and said it was only 8-j a week. Oroae- examined by Mr Ray : Gave a week's notice. Hori objected to his leaving. Rori Rangibeua deposed— Plaintiff was digging potatoes for him in April at so much a ton ; he afterwards asked for a weekly wage; he was promised a yearly wage of £20 and tucker to look after the place ; told him if he gave satisfaction first year would increase his wages after ; (certain receipts were put in) ; considered plaintiff had been paid in full ; the arrangement was made in the kitchen. Iharaira deposed that he understood the agreement with Roarke wa3 £20 a year and food. Sana, wife of Rori, corroborated the other two witnesses. Judgment tor defendant. T. P. Williams v. William Carter. Claim £2 10s lOd. Mr. Ray appeared for defendant tfid pleaded infancy. T. P. Williams deposed that he sued for £2 balance of £9 lent in May, 1888. Cross-examined by Mr Ray, who produced receipts which amounted to £9 : Defendant wanted money to pay , Dsborne's account. William Carter deposed the statements of plaintiff were not true ; he put in a certificate of his birth ; told plaintiff that he could see all receipts »t Mr Ray's office. The S. M. said the receipts showed ' ft curious difference, and that only £7 appeared to be paid off "the IOU. In regard to the- certificate of birth the S.M. decided to reserve his deoision. }*• Thos. Weatwood & Co. v. George Gray.— Claim £8 23 3d. Mr Moore for plaintiff Thos. Westwood deposed— Goods were supplied ; defendant never disputed account ; had a horse for 8 weeks and 2 days from defendant, and allowed 20s for it. George Gray deposed he wanted more for the hire of the horse; he had not objected to the credit shown on account. Judgment for amount and costs, ; solicitor's fee, 21s. S. M, Baker v Bailiff. The S M. said he had heard all the evidence and the bailiff's reply, and had Mr Baker's reply which he bad asked should be read in Court. The S. U. then read the letter. Mr Gillespio said that the letter was nothing but a tissue of lies, what was said about himself and bis ftifo was nothing but a tissue of lies.

Mr Qillespie here put in certified copies of telegrams sent in the seizure of Lochnagar, as well as documents in regard of plaint and charges, being the plaint referred to and letters from Mr Innes. The Magistrate said he would give his decision next Courtday. The delay had been unconscionable but ha had been waiting for this letter from Mr Baker. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. Thoa. Westwood & Co. v. W. H. Huwe. Mr Moore appeared for judgment creditor and Mr Hawkins for defendant. W. H. Howe on being sworn said he could make no offer < had been getting Go a day on fine days since January ; was working with his brother on the steamer in the early part ; he was getting then 2Qs a week and found ; his brother took a contract to deliver green flax to Aldridge & Co. and he went halves with him ; they were to get 2s 6d a ton ; some days delivered 9 tons at other times 6 tons ; the amount had not been settled in full, there was £8 due to him and his brother ; have no interest in s.s. Moutoa ; never had any ; working now for the Motoa Estate, it was a small contract ; fourpence a yard was the price for embanking ; there would be 3 miles of it ; reckoned there Would be 2000 yards in the whole lot ; couid not make any offer until a prior .jndgment had been settled; after that was paid would offer 20s a month. The case was adjourned for a month. H. G. Moore v. W. H. Howe.— Claim £10 15s 6d. Adjourned for a month. M. J. McCarthy v* J. Sharp,— Claim £7 Is Bd. Mr Ray for plaintiff, would agree to adjournment for 8 months. S. Muggleton v. R. Taylor. — Claim £3 8s 4d. 303 was paid into Court. No appearance of defendant. Mr Moore for plaintiff. Ordered that defendant pay the sum of £1 18 a forthwith, order to be suspended if 20s is paid on 6th June and 18s paid on July Gth or in default 7 days imprisonment. S. Muggleton v T F. Taylor. — Claim £5 10s 2d. SOg paid into Court. Mr Moore for plaintiff. Ordered to pay £4 Os 2d forthwith, order to be suspended as long as debtor pays £1 on the 6th day of each month, first payment on Gth June in default 7 days' imprisonment. A. S. Biss v. Forman and Jansen. —Claim £3 2s. Mr Crump applied for plaintiff. The case was abandoned owing to i the S.M. ruling it was improperly ! brought before the Court. I A. S. Biss v. T. Lamont.— Claim ! £4 15s. Mr Crump for plaintiff. t No appearance of defendant. Ordered to pay amount forthwith. Order to be suspended bo long as debtor pays £1 a month, first payi ment on 6th June ; in default 7 d&ya imprisonment. A Kerr v S. Fowler— Claim £1 lls lid. No appearance of defend- j I ant. Case adjourned for one month j at creditor's request. j j Warnook & Adkin v. John Acder- j son — Claim £3 10 3. Mr Innes for | creditor, who asked for adjournment for a month. | J. P. Innes v. A. Burr — Claim £8 6s 4d. No appearance of defendant. Ordered that amount bo paid forthwith, in default 14 days imprisonment.