RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume IX, Issue 190, 12 August 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

[Before Lowtker Bboad, Esq., R M.] THIS DAY. Motjtbay v. Holland. This was an action brought to recover the price of certain machinery supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant upon his ord. r, for which he claimed £107, reduced to £100 to bring it within the jurisdiction of this Court The defendant contended that the prices charged were exorbitant, snd also claimed to beallowed the sura of £33 12a. in cost of repairs of part of the machinery and damages for detention of his saw-mill, which was by consent tried as a eet off. Mr. Fell appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. FiTr for defendant. The hearing of the evidence, which was of the most complieateJ. aad contradictory nature, and the addresses of counsel on both sides, occupied the whole of Monday. His Worship gave judgment todiy, and said that he had givea the evidence long and careful consideration, and after making a deduction for what appeared to be excessive rates charged, and of furthir sums to which the defendant was entitled aa a act-off, he should give judgment for £77 13s. 6d , a- d costs, £6 6s. BueiFobd (Trustee of Estate of J. W. Wills) v. Wills. This was an action brought by the Trustee of the bankrupt estate ot J. W. Will*, of Lower Moutere, flourmiller, against. Mrs Wills, the mother of the bankrupt to recov r a certain steam engine valued at about £100, alleged to have been frauduU ntly made over by the bankrupt to his moiher it the esse of his bankruptcy. Mr Acton Adams appeared f\, r the plaintiff, and Mr Fed for the defendant. The evidence on both sides was h?ard on Tuesday, when, after hearing counsel on both sides, his Worship reserved judgment. It appeared that some two j ears ago the defendant mortgaged her houae and lan 1 for JilOO, and lent the proceeds to her son (J. W. WiUe), receiving as au acknowledgment his 1.0. U., but no security whatever. It was to be repaid on demand. The son paid the interest pretty regularly until the 6th April last when Mrs Wills demanded the £100, and upon her iasuting upon immediate payme_r, the son, as the only means he had of satisfying her, offered to make over to her the steam engine, if (he would return bim the 1.0.l T . To this Mrs Wills consented, and the IO U. was returned to th- sin. But as the mill could not work without the engine until the winter rains brought the water clown, it was arranged between mother and son that the son should retain possession of the engine until water to work the mill should come down. On the 27th April Mrs Wills sent her son a note, a -king hi:n to send over the engine of which he appeared to hsve taken no particular notice until about the 20th May, about which dace, the water having come down, he ordered one Tennant to take the engine over to his mother. O.i the evening of the 23rd he was served with a summons at the suit of Mr Burford, ani on Monday 25th May he went over to Nelson to arrauge about the summons without giving any further notice aa to the removal of the engine. Tennant rem ived the engine tj the defendant's premises before two p ra. on Tuesday the 26th May, in the afternoon of which day Wilis signed and filed a declaration of insolvency, which was gazetted on the following day. Wills swore that he had not the alighteat intention of becoming bankrupt when he made the transfer to his mother on the 26th April, nor even when he went to Nelson on the 25th May, though he was to his knowledge in insolvent circumstance?. He also said that he should never havejthougbt of making the transfer to hia mother but for the pressure Bhe had put upon him, Mr Adams did not attempt to impeach the bona fi Jes of Mrs Wills, nor the truth of her evidence, but contended that the transfer by Wills had been of his own free motion, and it contemplation of bankruptcy. Mr Fell said that probable insolvency was not sufficient to constitute contemplation of bankruptcy, and that it was impossible to say that the engine had been transferred by Wills of his own accord, although the proposal to do so came from him, since it was the direct result of the demand made upon him by defendant for repayment of the loan of £100 His Worship aaid ho waa pretty well aatisfiedjUpon the facts of the case, but took time to consider the cases cited. In delivering judgment to-day he aaid— lt appears that on the 6th April J. W. Wills was actually in insolvent circumstances, but had committed no act of bankruptcy, nor did he then immediately contemplate Buch an act. That there is not sufficient evidence to lead me to conclude that he made this aale of the engine with a view of providing for such a case. That the event which lei immediately [to bis bankruptcy, namely, Stone's failure, and the pressure put upon him by Burford, did not occur uutil six weeks after the transaction which is now impeached as fraudulent. Case dismissed with costs Hoope- & Dodson v Hutcheson. Action to recover £68 3s lid, balance of an account due. Defendant did not appear. Judgment for plaintiffs for amount claimed, and coets, £>l 19s. Habley Bkothsbb v Sutton. Action to recover lis 3d. Defendant did not appear. Judgment for plaintiffs for amount claimed, and costs, 9s.