R. M. COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume IX, Issue 112, 16 April 1885, Page 3

R. M. COURT.

THIS DAY.

(Before R. Ward.; Esq., R.M.) BREACH OP BY-LAWS. Alex. Black — Chimney on fire, fined ss. Keys — same. No appearanoe. Adjourned till next Court Day. ALLEGED ASSAULT. T. Edwards v. J. B. Anderson. Application to have defendant bound over to keep the peace. Complainant deposed that on lith April defendant chased him along the road and threatened him. Defendant pleaded not guilty. T. Edwards deposed that lie lived at Stouey Creek, defendant lives about a mile away. Saw accused at 4 or 5 m tlio evening of the Ilth at Terrace End, I was getting off my horse at the store, and he (defendant) railed at me and used threatening language. He said he would put the set on me. The only reahqu I can assign for his conduct is that I objected to tlio defendant getting a contract from the Road Board as I had had experience previously of his ability and believed he was not a good workman. Stokes deposed to meeting Anderson before the Saturday m question and that he said he wanted to see Edwards and that he would screw his neck off. J, R. Anderson deposed had a contract about 12 months ago from the Road Board. A few wnoks ago I was spoken to by the engineer of the Road Board about a small contract, and I said I would take it. Subsequently he (the engineer) wrote to me and said that Mr Edwards objected to my getting the contract. I caiue to Palmerston and saw the plaintiff but did not threaten him m any way whatever ; the accusation is entirely false. John Anderson : Remembered Saturday last I was nt the blacksmith's shop Terrace End, my brother was talking to : me, and on seeing Mr Ed wads lie left . me and went towards him; I did not hear a word they had to say. I was about a chain away. I did not see my brother follow Edwards accross the railway line. He did not follow him. I swear he did not. The plaintiff is m the habit of damaging the characters of persons he comes m contact with. Charge dismissed. CIVIL CASES. E. Prior v. W. Smith.— Claim, £3 3s. Order made on application of defendant to pay m one month. Mr J. H. Hankins for plaintiff. Estate of P. Beaven v. J. Jessop. — Claim, £17 9s 9d, goods supplied. Mr J. H. Hankins for plaintiff and Mr A. S. Baker for defendant who pleaded statute ot limitation. F. Beaven gave evidence to having supplied the goods, .£5 was paid on account m 1881 and was the last payment made. He received it at Sandon from 'the defendant who was working m the bush then. Mr Hankins contended that this payment having been made would upset the plea of the statute of limitation. : Mr Baker endeavored to show that I the goods had been received from a coinI pany and not from the plaintiff only. Mr Hankins here applied for an adjournment. — Granted. j Manawatu Road Board v. F. T. Collins. — Claim, 4:5 3s Id, rates. { This was an adjourned case and having heard some particulars the Bench decided that as its decision would be one of importance he should like to hear the points argued by counsel. A similar case would be heard m Feilding next court day and he would therefore ad.

journ this one m order to hear the arguments of counsel on both sides of the question. Adjourned nine (fie. Several other rate case;-, were also adjourned sine die. E. Snow v. 11. W. Baker. Claim Value of spring cart alleged to have been wrongly seized and sold by the defendant, he having received notice of the illegality of such procedure. Mr J. H. llankins for defendant. Plaintiff conducted his own case, and stated that he was the owner of the cart when it was seized. He had leased it to Thomas Pnareo at 2s Od per week, and that the defendant acting under a warrant for costs m action (irillet v. Pearce had seized it. In cross examination plaintiff stated that the trap originally belonged to Pearco, that the latter sold it him (Snow), for £10, £8 being paid m cash and Jcl m boots. He then leased it to Poarce at 2s 6d a week, first month to be free, and" if he paid £12 at the end ot that month he could have it back. An argument to this effect was entered into between the j parties. I Mr J. H. Hankins cited from " The j Chattel Securities Act, 1881," and con- j tended that the agreement made between Snow and Pearce, was null and void, it not having been registered. The Act plainly stated that (for protection of creditors) agreements of this discription were of no value unless registered. Counsel pointed out that the injustice to the public would be most glaring if such contracts were allowed without they j were properly recorded. He would also contend that the plaintiff had failed to interplead and therefore was not now entitled to a hearing. The B-M. thought that the plaintiff had a very poor case. He would, however, at his request consider the matter and look up authorities on the question, before giving a decision. Judgment reserved.