DISTRICT COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume X, Issue 51, 29 July 1885, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

YESTERDAY.

(Before Judge Eawson.)

Weisner v. Sykes. Mr" Baker applied for a new trial on the grounds that judge m sdirected jury as to one portion of claim. Mr Hankins insisted that, rule 190 should be adhered to. Application refused. Official Assignee m Bankruptcy m the estate of S. J. Gaminun v. Holland. —Claim £100. ■ Mr Hankins for- plaintiffs, and Mr Prior with him Mr Sandilands for defendant. | Mr Prior objected to iurisdiction of Court, and stated that Mr Scott was Deputy Official Assignee m bankruptcy of S. J. Gamman, that Garainan when he tiled was m possession of a lease of sawmill. After the bankruptcy, by agreement (winch recited properly had vetted m Assignee), my clients agreed to purchase lease for jjlOO m two promissary notes ot £50 each. It was afterwards found, before the bills became due, that the Assignee had not cloaked himself •with title m accordance with Act and m consequence Holland was instructed to dishonor bills. The agreement was that at the time promissory notes wore given Scott had no " title. If the question of bona fide title come m then the Court has no jurisdiction. The Assignee should m a certain time provided by Act elect whether he will take lease. The trustee here did not elect, consequently had no title, and had no right therefore to transfer. In that case lease revetted to lessor. Mr Hankins contended that case mußt be gone into to ascertain whether ques- ■ tion ot bona fide title enters into case ut all arising between the parties. A. R. T. Haultam, Clerk of the District Court : produce bankruptcy proceedings m Gamman's estate. Date of order of adjudication 23rd April, 1884. Election to take lease, &c, filed Oth June, 1884, signed by Scott on 4th June, i.e. about two months after filing. Lease is not mentioned m the assets of bankruptcy. . [Lease with endorsement m favor of Assignee produced] . Mr Prior pointed out that same had been registered after the present action brought, viz., m July, 1885. W. A. Sundilands, solicitor, practising at Feilding : acted for Holland m matter. Had frequent communications with Hankins and Scott .respecting payment of nrbmisijory note. I ■.lid reason was that Scott had no title. On 4th July found deed registered. ..... . . : Henry Holland^r ßemember Gainiiian filing^ JLeoiered inta an -agreement release. I was present when document [produced] signed. I -signed: promissory note on faith of agreement atuf v ior " consideration therein mentioned. After" wards found Scott had no interefst.f My promisJßofV|noiEiss|\^^ : p^fib^io}e.B tiiut don't knew tOlgii|fo)rrn6dt $ssigkgg? I would do' Ho. The reason was that Iliad heard Scott couldn't give title. Agreer-ment-reeitfes^Scotf-'lia'diise.' Attendeu 1 3 J meetu%s'iof cjcrediior^t' ' > Tftey gave me to understand , tha^tltey; yfbVtfd- 'tak^ 'over l,ea3#srM^d6bar/^e-^ macmner. i y h for;, -space, ,pf . , siyen . years. Gamman's creditors t A^o^ltl'nt.. be ;al-. lpwed to have mill, for .seven years. I The machinery' was' inirie 1 previous to '■ ■ To' fii& •H^nojr^iliß !c6nsideratidrt is | m writing. , Scqfct' was : present at meetings;. : />.■-' ■'••;■'■■ 'V- ;••■•>•■• •;■; ;;; , To Mr Prior— Haar known Oflicial Assignee had not elected to take lease at tiiuaof signing "SgreCTfient -I^wouid " hot " haye 1 signed ." _ The facts were rjaiisrepre;gented & hi6'aßflie'time'of«ganrg. ' Under advice I disputed title. Cross-examined by : Mr Hankins: Before Gamman filed; machinery was mine. ' After ]@age executed I put same on land. ■ Present at meeting 4th June. I signed agreement which' is now m Court, to give two promissory notes for £60. I signed agreement. Arranged with Gamman to work mill, then considered sama . belonged to me. Gamman was "then nay agent. Sent letter to Assignee dated 12th March, saying I would see to payment of bills till m possession of mill. Never asked Scott to take mill ; want to keep possession. Never tendered payment to Scoit. for bills. Never asked anyone Jto take, amount of bills out m timber subsequently to dishonoring bills. Mr Hankins made a communication to me about payment of bills. I replied to you I decline paying myself, but Gamman had said that if any chance of getting an order would have no objection to cutting same. Never made offer. S. J. Gamman was examined on both sides. Mr Prior then addressed the Court. Mr Hankins replied. . His Honor said that it appeared to him that a prima facie .case had been made out and that as lease not mentioned m assets and no notice given, the Assigee had a right to elect to take lease at any time. TBat property was actually vested m Assignee there is no doubt. I therefore give verdict for plaintiff for amount £100, with costs £6 15s. Natives v. Davis & Stewart. — Claim, £150 for rent. Mr Baker for Native?. Mr Hankins for defendants. j Plftintifle noisuited with cots £8 10b. [Left Sitting.]