Magistrate's Court, Palmerston North.

Manawatu Herald, 9 June 1896, Page 3

Magistrate's Court, Palmerston North.

(Before R.L. Stanford, Esq., S.M.) Momday, Bth June. civil casks. Alien and Harunann v. Carl Fritbyoff liortensen.— Claim £20 8s 10d. This action was before the Magistrate's Court at Foxton on the 4th June, but was adjourned to Palmeriton in consequence of the alleged illness of tkt defendant at Otaki. Mr Bay tor plaintiffs and Mr Hawkins for defendant. Mr Hawkins objected to the case being heard as it was intended to get it removed into the Supreme Court and he had given notice of this to plaintiff's solicitor. The S.M. asked Mr Bay if he had reetivei notice. Mr Bay said he had received notice from defendant*! solicitor that an application would be made on the next sitting of the Supreme Court, Wellington, in Chambers for an, order removing the action to the Saja^ae Court; but he contended that the notice waa not sufficient to entitle the Court to stop the ease from being heard that day. That in order to stop the case it mart be shown that an application to remove had been mtde, and there was no evidence that such an application had been made. He contended that the defendant had no defenoe to the action which was on a P.N. and he was only endeavouring to gain time. Mr Hawkins insisted' that there was a defence to the action and stated that the defendant bad sworn an affidavit to this effect whioh had been forwarded to Wellington to file. Tht S.M. said he was satisfied that the ttfendant was seeking to gain time. The summons was served on 81st May, and no attempt to remove the action into the Bnpreme Court was made between that day and the day of hearing, 4th Jane. The case would be heard. He suggested that the claim for interest should be withdrawn leaving the claim at £30. Mr Bay assented to this. Mr Hawkins said he was aot prepared to defend tbe case that day. He than left the Court. Arthur E. T. Nixon, Manager of the Bank of Australasia at Foxton, was called and proved the defendant's signature to the P.N. and also the presentation and dishonov. Aaked what the word "InstraotioM " meant in the memorandum of disaenomr endorsed on the JP.N. he said he proiueed a latter from the defendant instructing bin to dishonour all his (defendant's) P.N's. Judgment by default for £20, court oosts £1 9s ; witness £2 6s, solicitor £2 2s. William Bernord Rhodes v. Carl Frithyofl Moitensen.— Claim £55 6a. This was an action adjourned from Foxton aider the same circumstances aa the last Mtion. Mr Bay for plaintiff. A similar notice as in the last case had been given to plaintiff's selicitor by defendant's solicitor of intention to get tint oasa removed into the Supreme Court. Mr Bey produced a telegram from his Wellington agents {Messrs Bell, Gully and Izard), stating that they had searohed the Court records that day (Monday) and that there was no application far removal of the action on the Chamber or Banco list •ni that the Begistrar had informed them that no papers in the matter had been fllei. . ; The B.M. determined to hear the case. Judgment by default for amount of olaim, court costs £2 le, solicitor's fee £3 ts6d. Mr Bay applied for immediate exeoation in both aotions. The S.M. granted the application.