Magistrate's Court, Pal menston North.

Manawatu Herald, 3 September 1896, Page 2

Magistrate's Court, Pal menston North.

(Before B. L. Stanford, Esq., 8.M.) JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF PBfIBSAU V. ANDERSON. (Continued.) I may say here that Anderson claimed a sum of about £90, as due to him for work done with fitting in the engine, and some portions of this sum at any rate is probably still owing to him. No counter claim having been filed, however, I cannot of course deal with the claim now. As regards the sum of £2 8s obarged for bailiff, the claim . seems a monstrous one, since Anderson at the date of seizure had handed over possession lo Perreau. This item is disallowed, as also the ram of ten shillings for clerical work, bat I allow the expenses of preparing tht.

flax on ike place for market since • Anderton ia credited with the proceeds. It Is to be noted besides the errors now corrected, credit is given ia the present account fo^ £10 8s lid for false entrance discovered when the case was previously before the Court, so the total of the fraud attempted to be perpertrated upon Anderson amounts to £108 8s 2d out of a total claim of £96 7s 6d, reduced by payments to £81 19 a 6d. The so called clerical errors are ■ummarised below. The Item headed Spelman'o judgment is reduoed by 10a since Perreau should have paid the account without process, the item bank interest and overdraft is a preposterous one and is disallowed, whilf only one half of the petty cash charged to December 81st oan be allowed. Under the auction account, •van under the plaintiff s own showing, the expenses amounting to £2 4iar« improperly charged. I now come to the "Chattel Security Aetonnt." The fint disputed item in thif ia on August 28rd white credit if given on account of a gale of a bone to Aldridge, and this Anderson claims that £14 should be the oradit.

I am satisfied that Anderson is >: wrong here in his demand through not understanding a somewhat intricate transaction and that the ortffit of £6 is a correct one. The whole of the interest charges are disputed on the grounds that the Bill of Sale was repaid on February 7th by the acceptance of Perreau of Promissory Notes for £60 and the previous credit of £16 for horse sold. The evidence shows that the only sums owing by Anderson to Perreau on February 7th, 1895, were— On current aocount £1, balance £4 for grass, now rednced to £2, £8 rent of paddock, £2 8s interest on mortgage and £2 9s 6d on cattle account, or a total of £10 17s 6d. lam asked to ■oppose that the payment of this £60 was intended in payment of these small accounts on the day the Bill of Sale fell due. Interest on the Bill of Sale should be charged only on £32 9s for ten months and on £2 9s for two months or £6 12s 6d a difference from the account stated of £6 Of sd. In the ourrent accounts the sum of four pounds for grass will be reduced to £2, and an extortinate charge of £6 for horse hire will be disallowed, the total reduction being £8, the figures then ■am up as follows : — Mill Account No. 1 Nov. 13, Kinder* account, £17 4s 2d; Nov. 18, Spiers labour, £2 ; Nov. 13, Coley iron, £1 ; Dec. 4, Hargreaves wages, 189 ; Dec. 13, Spiers labour, £2; do., £3 7s; Dec. 24, rent engine, £20; Jan. 27, see Wright (error), 10»; Feb. 20, Wardens store, £1 10a ; March 4, Walsh and Howan

(error), 6s 3d ; March 12, bailiff, £2 8s; olerioal work, 10s; SpelmaoV judgment, 10s ; Bank interest, £1 8s lOd ; Jan. 1, commission, £5 3s lid ; wrong addition (error) £Q 12 ; Jan. 81, Anderson (error), 10s ; Dec. 81, commission 2J per cent, £3 lls lOd ; I Feb. 28, commission, 8s lid ; Dec. 81, petty cash, £5 17s 7d ; auction' acoount expenses, £2 4s; ourrent account, grass £2, horse hire £6, 48 ; chattels, security, and interest, j £6. Total, £92 19s Bd. Wardell j error 18s 6d (error), 10s— £92 9s 3d. The only item of importance in the account with which I have not j fioially dealt with is that for rent, don't feel disposed to go into the question, whether the two distresses I were legal or not. The amount of the rent is undisputed, and I have no doubt that Perreau is not debarred by his distresses from suing. With reference to costs, I propose to exercise my discretion by for once allow—, ing defendant all possible costs tor the trouble he has been put to for repeated appearance before the Court. In such an arrangement as that under review, where the office partner in charge of accounts has misused his position to bring in a working man his debtor by grossly in* accurate accounts it seems to me plain that the working man is at least entitled to all"poaßible costs for resistance. R. L. Stanford, 3.M. Judgment for defendant with costs 6*. witnesses £5 19a Bd, solicitor £4 17s.