Magistrate's Court, Palmerston.

Manawatu Herald, 19 May 1896, Page 3

Magistrate's Court, Palmerston.

♦ ' (Before R. L. Stanford, Esq., 8.M.) Monday, JUa* 18, Hans Androasen v. George Nevill. —Claim JBIB 19a 4d. Counter claim £17 Is. Mr Bay appeared for plaintiff and Mr Hawkins for defendant. This waa an action for recovery of balance due for fish supplied between Brd May, 1892, and 20th January, 1893, and between 28th May, 1894, and 27th August, 1894. The defendant put in a counter claim for £28 6a lees £11 4s, credits allowed in plaintiffs claim. Haas Andresen deposed that in 1888 defendant came down to the beach at Man&watu Heads and asked him to supply him with fiih to be sent by train every morning to Palraerston. He, plaintiff, agreed to supply him With fish at 8d a Dundle, defendant to pay the Catriage ahd to deduct same from price of fish. Plaintiff supplied him with fish and the defendant paid danh pretty regularly for some time and then £6t into arrears. In January, 1898, plaintiff refused to supply fish except for cash. From that time until early in 1866, the transactions Were for cash but still defendant got further into arrears and the sum sued for was still due. On crops-examination by Mr Hawkins, plaintiff denied that he owed defendant £8 12? for lost fish or that £7 12s paid in 1898 and for | which a receipt was produced dated ! Uth December, 1898, was paid on | account of the amount claimed in the action. He admitted that the defendant paid into Bank of New Zealand at Palmerston £6 5a for ! him in June, 1894, but stated that 'he, plaintiff, had provided £1 8s of this sum. In re examination plaintiff produced a letter from defendant dated in June, 1894, in which he acknowledged that plain' iff had forwarded him £4 8i of the £6 5o paid into the Bank. Emma Andresen, plaintiff's wife, gave corroborative evidence. Defendant then gave evidence. He stated that owing to his wife's illness and death he had got behind with plaintiff. He thought -he was entitled to be allowed for lost fish. He did not know what lie owed plaintiff. The B.M. in giving judgment said no business defence had beeq offered. He considered the plaintiff had proved his claim and that the counter claim had not been proved. He thought the defendant's claim for £6 ss, paid to the Bank of New Zealand was improper ag it was clear £4 8s of the amount had been supplied by plaintiff, and plaintiff had given defendant oredit for the difference. Judgment for plaintiff for claim £18 19s 4d, Court oost £1 4s, witness 10a, and solicitor 81 6s.