RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume VI, Issue 294, 13 December 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

[Before J. Sharp, Esq , E.M.] "Greenfield v. Hockton ; claim for £57; the same v. the same; claim for £20 145.; the same v. the same ; claim for £26 3s. In these cuses, Mr. Greenfield, as Immigration Commissioner, sued the defendant for the above amounts, for which he had reudered himself liable as part payment of the passages o? cerfain immigrants from England. Defendant admitted his liability, and judgment was given accordingly. Greenfield v. Thomas Usher, and Peter Cooke. This was a similar action to the above, the sum sought to be recovered being £44 10s. Mr. Usher admitted the liability, but Mr. Cooke, by his solicitor, Mr. Fell, argued that the bond being informal in that there was no seal affixed to it, the debt became au ordinary one, aud consequently came within the Statute of Limitations. His Worship, in giving judgment, said that the first question to decide was as to the deed, and his opinion was that it did not fall within the meaning of the terms of the Statute of William IV. that sealing was necessary to briug it within the statute so as to extend its value to the full term of 20 years. Next, as to the other question, the plea of the ordinary Statute of Limitations. There were no precise data to show when the liability of defeudants commenced to run, but it might be assumed at any rate to have been prior to March, 1864, and consequently the present debt would naturally come within the statute, but, apart from' that, there was another consideration which would tend to oust the Act, viz., tho payment of part of ihe principal by instalments extending down to 26th October, 1866. It was true that there was no positive evidence to show who made all the payments, or that Cooke ever made any, but it was stated by Usher and Webb (the immigrant intro- i duced) that the lotter paid them. For whom then did he pay them ? It was not pretended that be had made them for either in particular, and therefore, no other conclusion could be arrived at thau that the payments were for both, Webb being the agent for both. Consequently, the last payments took the present debt out of the Statute. Judgment would be for the plaintiff for the amount claimed with £3 7a. costs.