DISTRICT COURT.

Oamaru Mail, Volume IV, Issue 1319, 8 September 1880, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

IN BANKRUPTCY.

THIS DAY. (Before His Honor District Judtre \Vard.)_ In re Timothy Halloran —Mr. Hislop applied for an order for the bankrupt's discharge.—Order granted. In re Patrick Nihil—Mr. Newton applied for an order for the discharge of the bankrupt.—Order granted. In re Thomas Ferens—Mr, Balmer, for Mr. O'Meagher, applied for an order for the payment of 'costs out of the estate.— Order granted. In re John Leitch—Mr. Balmer applied for an order for the bankrupt's discharge. —Order granted. In re John Mulveny—Mr. Hislop applied for an order for the payment of costs out of the estate. —Order granted. In re James Pryde—Mr. Hislop moved for an order declaring the deed of assignment completely executed.

PROBATE, Mr, Hislop appeared in support of an application for the granting of probate under the will of the late William Smillie. —Order granted. Mr. Hislop applied for an order.for the granting of interim letters of administration in the estate of the late George Strachan to Mr. David Hay.

CIVIL CASE. THOS. M C KAY, JUN., V. JAMES fJVBBOH. This was an account for. the recovery of the sqm of L3OO, Mr. Balmer appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Hislop for the defendant. The plaintiff set out the following particulars of demand For money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff for that the defendant had > wrongfully distrained on certain horses and goods belonging to the plaintiff, to wit one black mare, one bay colt, one bay horse, one stack of hay, and four pits of potatoes and oarrots, for pretended arrears of rent, and disposed of th§ said horses and goods to his own use. % For money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff for the horses and goods before named and so seized, taken away, and converted to the use. of the defendant, wherefore the plaintiff claims L2OO. To this defendant pleaded—.l. That he is not guilty. 2. That on or about the 7th. July,>lß77, by agreetpepi parties, the plaintiff entered upon certain land at Hampden, tfce property of the defendant, at the rental ;_of LIQ, to, be paid either yearly or half-yearly, that' the plaintiff has since that date continued to occupy the land, that the plaintiff was, at the date of the aUeg i dis-

traint indebted in the sum of L2O for rent, and that the defendant regularly distrained to recover the money, and this formed the trespass complained of. 3. That the black mare, bay colt, and bay horse and other property referred to in the plaintiff's particulars of demand were not the property of the plaintiff as alleged. The plaintiff gave evidence to the effect that early in 1877 he made an arrangement to buy several sections from the defendant, and had given bills for the amount. The first of these bills was dis-

honored, fand the agreement was cancelled. He then obtained permission from the defendant to use the paddocks on condition that he kept the gorse fences in order until such time as the defendant made lip his mind to sell the land, when plaintiff was to have the first chance of buying it. He occupied the land until May of this year, and had never paid any rent, nor had he been applied to for payment. On. his return from Christchurch he found that certain horses, hay, and carrots had been seized by Mr. Crawford as bailiff for the defendant. One of these horses —a mare called Maori—he had not seen since. He would not have taken less than L6O for this mare. There were about two tons

of hay, worth about L 5 to him, as it was Gape barley, English rye, and oaten hay. He had not had this hay returned to him ; it had been eaten and destroyed by stray cattle that had got into the paddock. More of the property had been sold. I Mr. Hislop cross-examined the plaintiff at considerable length. Witness admitted that in October, 1876, he had paid the defendant L 5 for the use of the paddock for the year. He did not remember Carroll telling him that Mr. Murcott had offered him L 7 a year for the use of the paddock. He remembered receiving a letter from Messrs. Hislop and Creagh, stating that as they did not wish to put him to further expense than necessary, they would agree that the horses should be held by a third party, or that he should give a marked cheque for the amount of rent arid expenses, pending the settlement of the question of plaintiff's liability in Court. (Plaintiff was questioned at some length upon matters relating to his character). William Maitland corroborated the statement of the plaintiff with reference to the cancelling the agreement for the sale of the land, and the arrangement that the plaintiff should have the use of the land provided that he should keep the fences in order.

William M'Pherson, poundkeeper at Hampden, gave evidence to the fact of the horses having been placed in a paddock attached to the pound, and to their having got out. Daniel O'Brien gave evidence to having seen the black horse Maori win several races. It would be worth about L 35. To Mr. Hislop : He would not like to give L 35 for the horse. It was difficult to put a value upon a racehorse. If plaoed in the market the horse would fetch about L2O. , Maurice Evans thought the horse Maori worth about L 45. Nathan Colville estimated the value of the horse at between L 45 and L6O. For the defence, Mr. Hislop called James Carroll, the defendant, who stated that after the arrangement for the sale of the land had been cancelled, it was understood that the plaintiff should still keep possession of the land at the rental of LlO a year, which he had previously been paying. There was no agreement that the plaintiff should have the use of the paddock merely for keeping the fences in repair. Plaintiff was bound to do so under his agreement to rent. At the time the distraint was levied, the plaintiff owed two years' rent at LlO a year. In reply to Mr. Balmer, witness said that he certainly had not agreed to let the plaintiff have the use of the land for keeping the fences in repair. The plain-

tiff and Mr. Maitland were in error in regard to the matter. At the time that the arrangement was made for the sale of the land, it was agreed that if the plaintiff could not meet the bills he should be released from the agreement, and that heshould continue to hold the lease of the land at the former rental. James Field Crawford, who levied the distress, stated that the horses had been l removed from the stable where they had jat : first been put on the strength of a letter handed to him by the plaintiff's wife, who acquiesced in the place in which they were placed. The horses remained safely in the paddock until the night after the plaintiff returned home. His opinion was that the horses had been purposely driven out of the paddock and the rail removed. If the missipg horse had been sold at Hampden at the time it would not have brought more than LlO. Its outside value as a light hack was not more than Ll§ or L2Q. Counsel having addressed the Court, His Honor nonsuited the plaintiff.