S.M. Court.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 3585, 14 October 1905, Page 2

S.M. Court.

TIiURDAY, OCTOBER 12m A. D. Thomson, S»M.) CIVIL. Judgment was entered in the following cases:— * P. Hennessy v, C. Anderson. Claim £io 2s 6d. Costs iss, solicitor’s fee 10s. Mrs A, A. Alsford v. G. Roberts. Claim £5 6s. Costs 6s, solicitor’s fees £1 6s. J. McAlister v. Geo. Coley. Claim £ 25. Nonsuited by consent. Smale and Hay v. Philip and Mrs I Jones. Claim £l2 4s qd. Costs £1 solicitor’s fee 10s 6d her of other civil cases were A&arar* • or se ttied out of either SaJonipM '« Court. CRIMINAL. Muriel Mahoney, for riding a bi£yd« on the footpath, was fined ss, and costs 75. For refusing to quit licensed premises FfaStfk Coyle was fined 10s, casts ns, witnesses expenses 12s. Same offender, for.wilful damage, was convicted and ordered lo pay cost ot damage 15s, and court costs f§/ Same offender, for obscene language, was fined 40s, costs 7s. Same offender, threatening and SfaiAve language, was convicted and discharged, a prohibition order being taken out against him for 12 months. James Ryan, prohibited person found on licensed premises. Fined 10s, costs 7s. PROHIBITION ORDER. A prohibition qrder was granted against R. Walden for 12 months.

j?. SHADBOLT V; HARDEN,

Mr R. Moore appeared for plaintiff, and Mr P. E. Baldwin for defendant. The plaintiff alleged that defendant (who is a Palmerston solicitor) tty neglecting to pay to the judgment creditor the amount of a judgment alter plaintiff had paid the amount of the judgment to defendant. A distress warrant was issued against plaintiff, in consequence of which he had incurred pecuniary loss and injury to his credit. Plaintiff further alleged that defendant, by omitting to issue a subpoena for a witness after undertaking to do so, and by neglecting to pay plaintiff’s witnesses in certain suits at Palmerston after receiving the money to do so, had paused trouble, pecuniary loss, and injury to credit of the plaintiff. Evidence was given by Constable Lander as to receiving a distress warrant tor .execution against plaintiff, and making enquiries for him, Frederick Sbadbolt gave evidence as to coqalfkta made by police for his brother,., Plaintiff gave evidence as to receu mg word that the police were inquiring far him, and hit* Coming to Foxton to see what was wrong. He also gave evidence in support of the other allegation in his claim. . Cross-examined by Mr Baldwin— Did not know what the police wanted him for. Had come to Foxtail On other business as well as to see what the police wanted. It was riot true that when dissatisfied with his solicitors he began making unfounded claims against them. It was not true that he instituted these proceedings merely 'because he had received his bill of costs from defendant. It was true he had had dealings with defendant since the distress warrant.

Re-examiaed by Mr Moore—Did not take the business away from defendant at once, because he could not very well take a case out of a solicitor’s hands when it was partly done. He intended waiting until his business was finished before taking action against defendant. Evidence was. also given by a number of witnesses who had been witnesses for the plaintiff in cases at Palmerston N., in which defendant was employed. The Magistrate said the plaintiffs evidence did not in his opinion show any cause of action against defendant in any of the allegations outside of the first one relating to tne distress warrant.

The defendant gave evidence as to receiving a cheque from plaintiff to pay the judgment in question. He paid the cheque into his trust account. On ascertaining that the cheque had been cleared he paid the amount to Mr Innes, solicitor, for the judgment creditor. He did not know then that a distress warrant had already been issued- The cheque was returned owing to not having added the fee on the distress warrant, and defendant’s clerk put it away without informing him that it had been returned. On learning from plaintiff that a distress warrant had been issued, witness immediately settled with Mr Innes. He subsequently discovered the cheque by accident amongst his papers. Plaintiff bad not only made no complaint about the distress warrant when he mentioned it to him, but had also done a considerable amount of business with him since.

Cross-examined by Mr Moore —lt was abour five weeks after he bad paid in plaintiff’s cheque that he found it had been cleared. Had forgotten to inquire earner. . Mr Innes’ clerk had asked him only once for payment ot the judgment and that was before the cheque would bo cleared. Would swear positively that he had not been a deed .-at least five times. It was not true that all of Mr Innes’ clerks had repeatedly asked him for a . settlement. Admitted he was responsible for an oveisight bv his own clerk. Did not pay plaintiff’s cheque direct to Mr Innes because he considered it the usual practice for a solicitor to pass such cheques through his trust account. Admitted it could have been done but saw no necessity for it. Considered the jugdment creditor’s solicitor had not acted properly in issuing a distress warrant without giving him formal notice that he was doing so. Would swear positively that he had not got such notice either in writing or otherwise. The Magistrate said he must hold there had been negligence in the matter of the distress warrant, but not in respect to the other matters alleged. At tbe same time be was of

opinioH that plaintiff had come to Foxton on other business and would accordingly have incurred the expense in any case. Moreover he had not at the time made any complaint to defendant about it. Nominal damages only of 40s would be allowed to plaintiff with court costs 6s.