MAGISTRATES' COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XV, Issue 91, 16 April 1880, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURT.

CHARGE Oil? PERJURY. YESTERDAY. [The following evidence was taken too late for insertion in yesterday's issued] Edmund Walter Thomas deposed : I was formerly the owner of Marahau, and am the Edmund Walter Thomas referred to in the mortgage. In September last year I was in arrear with my interest to Mr Acton Adams. I had a conversation with him about selling. I tliink it was some time in October. At the time I spoke fco Mr Adams with Mr Donald I mentioned the price as £SOO, and that I would then give in the Maori seotions. I think that was at the beginning of November last. It was just before Mr Donald went down to see the place. Mr Adams had never my consent for selling for less than £700. In fact the place was sold without Mr Adams communicating with me directly or indirectly. After that I went to Marahau with Mr Donald. I went because he told me he had purchased the property for £700. I saw Mr Adams about the matter after his return from Wellington, and had a conversation with him about the sale. I think it was after Christmas. He told me he had sold the Marahau property to Mr Donald for £700. He said, I hear you will not give over the Maori sections, and I said, Certainly I will not, for I never authorised its sale for £700.- I also told him I thought he had sacrificed the property. £700.was more than I owed Mr Adams. I had a conversation with Mr Adanis about the balance. He said he was getting nothing for three years except tbe interest on the money, and £100 a year after, and when I asked him to settle with me he said ifc was like paying the money out of his own pocket, and he could not do it. There Avas something said about the Maori lease, and I said he had nothing to do with it. I objected to the way the ' place 'was sold without my knowledge at all. I went down to Marahau with Mr Donald, and showed him the boundary of the property. Of course if "that is giving him possession I did give him possession, but I look upon it differently. That was after Donald said he had bought the place, and I consequently showed him the boundary. I was present at the hearing of the- case on the sth April, and I heard Mr Adams examined as to Donald signing the agreement on the sth January. He said to the effect that Donald had reluctantly abandoned the leasehold before signing the agreement. Cross-exanained by Mr Conolly: I was willing that the whole freehold and leasehold should be sold for £800. If Mr Adams sold without my consent he could sell the freehold only. The freehold was the most valuable part of the property of course. The property ia more valuable with the leasehold. The property is very much enhanced in value by having the leasehold, with it. If the freehold and leasehold are worth £800 at my valuation, the freehold was worth a great deal more than £700. The amount of my indebtedness to Mr Adams at the end of the year was about £650. The mortgage is dated June, 1877, for £400. I have never paid any interest, but I have had f urther advances, so tha£ partly by interest and partly by advances the amount had increased to £650. ' There was a second mortgage over the same freehold property to. the Colonial Bank, amounting at the end of the year to about £250. When I asked Mr Adams for the balance I was fully aware that the Bank was entitled to the balance, but they had hops of mine which I thought would have realised the amount. lam aware that had Mr Adams paid me that balance he would have been liable to the Bank. I was also in arrears for rent of Maori lease to about £-40 I think. My circumstances have not been very flourishing lately, and I have been | short of money for the last two years. Mr Adams and I were on good terms prior to v the sale of this property, but not since. I was annoyed at the trial of the action Adams v. Boyes. With regard to the subsequent action Boyes v. Thomas there was something of an arrangement between us. He asked me for the money, or he said he would sue me. I said, Sue away. I told him I would be answerable for the costs. The action went against Mr Boyes. I have not paid the costs. I have not paid my witnesses yet. The object of letting Boyes sue me was to come to the truth as to the sale of the Marahau property. That action waa certainly brought with the object of getting Mr Adams into the box. I became aware of the agreement, the letter, and the receipt, and that was the reason I determined to get at the bottom of it. My own solicitor knew about it from my instructions. I- suppose I shall have to pay the costs of this suit. I may find means to do so. I have not paid any part of the costs of the last action, nor any part of the costs in this proseoution. Mr Bunny is my solicitor, and I authorised the retaining of J;Mr Pitt in the matter.. I had nothing to do with Jmstructing my solicitor to retain Mr Eeli also" Re-examined by Mr Pitt: If the matter of retaining Mr Pell was mentioned I forget it. 1 k^ e w there was come objection on the part of Mr Pitt. lam negotiating to sell some hop poles to Boyes. lam aware that Mr Adams has released Boyes from his judgment. Before I arranged to pay Boyes' costs he had threatened to sue. Mr Bunny had neyt-r acted for me in any way till after .Bo'yes threatened to sue. I should not have agreed to sell the Marahau property for £800

had he not wanted his money and I heen in arrears. When thjs arrar^ .:■ ' -"as made between Boyes and I ab< '•"•■ eing at any cost, now you brinf . it was mentioned when Mr 1 ; ■ ; * . * *.y M >.. ■"■■■•-' :e, Mr Boyes, and I were pr-- -•••,■'. Alfred Thomas Jc •'•-.-. •••.-<*.;l'i.-*. . V--* .;• bter dated 1 3th Novembe :-,'■': W• • * . ; **l; -- ; ung of Mr Percy Adams, a member oi' .ho nnn of Adams & Kingdon . John Nash deposed : I am a Sergeant of Police, stationed at Nelson. The summons against the present defendant was given me to serve shortly after i o'clock on the afternoon of Thursday last, the Bth inst. I went to Mr Adams' office, and got there about half -past four, but ifc was closed, and I went to his private house, when I found Mr Adams was up the country. The summons was not served till the next morning. Cross-examined by Mr Conolly : The office was closed when I got there. I don't know that it does not close till half -past four. But I should judge it was about half -past four when I got Uhere. I saw the Evening Mail about half -pass six that evening, and saw it | stated there that the information had been laid. Mr Adams got the summons the next morning. I did not serve him, but I was very close, and he said that he got the summons before he saw the Mail. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr Conolly was about to open the case for the defence, when the Chairman said the Bench wished to retire for a short time be-•fr-VA nvnAPPfl iTirr -tir.4-.l_ -J-!-..-. nr . nn A -_*4-___. 4-T*_-_

jlv/j.^ jjiu^i-uiug iv«u VU.V UttStJ. -OIJ-OCJ. UU.V lapse of about ten minutes their Worships re-entered, and the " Chairman said: When we adjourned we found, that there was no case made but against the defendant, and therefore ifc must be dismissed. The principal witnesses for the prosecution, Judge Broad and Robert Donald, gave evidence aa to what the value of the meaning attached tb the agreement must be. We consider that Thomas has given,- his evidence in a very straightforward manner. The Bench find that the defendant's reference to the agreement meant an agreement binding under the Statute of Frauds. Case dismissed. In answer to Mr. Conolly, the Chairman said: I do not see that we can say any more on the matter. There has been no false swearing on the part of the defendant. *^<g<*'''** J **''r*'** l '*mv ! -MOi«-__.i___«_uuEWy-_-»>^^