PALMERSTON.

Manawatu Times, Volume II, Issue 45, 24 March 1877, Page 3

PALMERSTON.

Thursday,- 22 sjd March, 1877. (Before B. Ward, Esq., R.M., and J. T. Dalrymple, Esq., J.P.) Edward Symons. was charged by Constable Purcell with having, sold a horse the property' of Alexander Mackay. The facts of the case as elicited by the examination appeared to be that Mac-' kay's horse had knocked up on the beach at the Otaki River. In conseque'nee he turned him loose, and lost sight of him. SymOns, seeing Mafikay some time afterwards, told him that he would get him his horse if he gave him the brands. Afterwards Mackay found the horse m the possession of a man named Barry. Barry proved that he "had bought the horse from Symonds m an exchange with a mare and £1. And it appeared that Symonds had so exchanged the horse, but acted on an authority which he h*ad m his pocket book signed Mackay. . v The' Court dismissed the case on the consideration that Symons had acted under a mistake, and there was no evidence of intention to defraud. civil cases. Brightwell v. Osborne, claim £8 10s. Mr Warburfoh for plaintiff ; Mr Cash for defendant. In this case the plaintiff sued the defendant for money found due from the defendant to the plaintiff on account stated between'them. After giving the defendant credit for all goods sold by him to the plaintiff, the plaintiff made a pass-book containing the statement of account above referred to, and delivered ,the same to the, defendant during the 'month of January, -1876. The defendant never disputed the correctness of the passbook, but after plaintiff's store and account books at the Oroua Bridge •were burned, defendant refused to show * the pass-book tolhe plaintiff. Mr Warburton called upon the defendant, "William Osborne, to give evidence. ' Mr Cash .objected to this course, and - said that according to the 31st clause of of the Resident Magistrate's Act, it was necessary that the plaintiff should make a full and explicit statement of his demand. r - -Mr Warburton quoted from English Statutes m support of his procedure, and explained that the Resident Magistrates' Acts were intended to be easier than the superior Engish Courts of Law ; and that a Court of Equity would compel defendant to show his pass-book if required. His Worship said that the Resident Magistrates' Act provided for such cases ; that the defendant might have been subpoenaed to appear arid produce his pass-book. - x Mr Warburton said he had posted a letter to the defendant. Mr Cash said that the Act required that a copy of the notice should also be filed wifh the Clerk of the Court. '

Mr Warbuvton aslced his learned friend under what section of the Act was such a provision made, and stated that he had never heard of it before. His Worship said that plaintiff not having complied with the 31st section of the Act he would dismiss tne case, plain - tiff to pay costs of Court 13s, and solicitor's fee £1 Is.. Brightwell v. P. A. Anderson, claim amount of promissory note for £30 6s 9d. Judgment for amount, with costs of Court and Solicitor's fee. . Brightwell v. C. Napier, claim £4 12s sd. Judgment confessed. Murphy v. Pahners'en. ■ This was an action to recover the value of an overcoat lent by plaintiff to defendant. : Plaintiff stated that he had lent the coat to defendant on a Sunday afternoon m the latter end of May or beginning of June ; that the driver of the Napier coach was present at the time, and that defendant had promised to send the coat back- byjgthe driver, but did not do so. He had afterwards seen defendant, and had asked him for the coat. Defendant had shown him some coats hanging m the passage of the Royal-Hotel, and he had taken one of them, believing that it was his own, but had afterwards discovered /that it was. not. Had. sent the coat back by the driver the following day. .- Defendant, m his evidence, stated that a coat had been lent to him by plaintiff, and that he had. promised to send it back by the driver of the Napier coach. On arriving m Palmerston he. went to the Royal Hotel and gave the coat into the charge of the waiter instructing hi m to send it by the coach driver to plaintiff. The waiter did not give the coat to the driver. . He (defendant) afterwards saw plaintiff m town at the Royal Hotel.. Plaintiff asked him for the coat. He conducted him to the passage where two . overcoats were hanging at, the time. Plaintiff identified one of them as his, and said that he would take it before leaving. The coat had a velvet collar. He supposed it would be worth £3 ss. or £3 10s. Judgment was given for plaintiff, for £3. Plaintiff said that he would hand over the amount to the Clerk of the Court as a subscription to the Cemetery Trust Fund. ■'■-„ There were eight other cases heard, but the pressure on our space compels us to hold them over. » ■ .