MAGISTERIAL.

Patea Mail, Volume VIII, Issue 1009, 14 March 1883, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

PATEA—YESTERDAY. (Before G. A. Wray, Esq., R. M.) ■ CIVIL CASES. G E Robinson (Crown Lands Ranger) v. William Hill.—This was a case in which plaintiff sought to re-enter upon section 24, 89, Wairoa Survey District, owing to defendant having failed to pay instalments due upon the land. There were six instalments due, amounting to £SO 12s 6d. R J Waitt proved the purchase of the land. There was no appearance of defendant, and an order for re-entry was made. Same v William Seaton.—Similar case to above : the arrears on Sec 2, B 8, amounting to £l5B 12s 69. Order made for re-entry. Same v A Dickie.—Arrears on Sec 2, B 9, Wairoa, £l9l 25.. Similar order. D Donley v Klink.—Claim, £8 for furniture purchased on defendant’s behalf. Mr Hamerton for plaintiff. D Donley stated that he had bought the, furniture, and it had not yet been paid for by defendant. He would not make any arrangement in the matter at all. Defendant admitted the claim, but said he could not get his money. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs, £1 12 s. Barker v. King,—Mr Hamerton for plaintiff, Mr Samuel of New Plymouth for defendant. This was a claim for £92 balance of goods sold to Mr Colson as defendant’s agent. Defendant put in as a set off, a debt alleged to be due by Mr Barker to Mr King, the purchaser of Riseley’s estate.

Mr Samuel opened the case, and said the claim was admitted. The debt ■ claimed as a set off, was due to Riseley prior te the action. He produced an assignment of book debts, from Riselej” to King, and at that time £92 were due b y Barker to Kiseley. He would prove that plaintiff admitted the debt, and that King accepted the assignment on that understanding. Shortly, the facts were as follow : Somewhere about the end of December, Riseley called a meeting of his creditors. Mr Barker attended and was set down as a creditor for £122. Mr Newton King agreed to purchase the estate:at 5s in the £, but - that - was - afterwards reduced by certain claims to 3s lOd , and on Mr King agreeing to hand promissory notes at three months to the creditors, Riseley assigned all his property except a small amount to pay some trifling accounts. Mr King’s duty was to,, hand the prom issory notes over, and by the original undertaking he would have to give Mr : Barker a promissory note for his 3s lOd on £122. Before the note was handed over, he discovered that Mr Norman, Manager of the Bank of Australasia, claimed the composition on £214 bills held by the Bank and given to Barker. The material point was that it turned out Barker was no, creditor at all on the estate, but a debtor to the extent of £92, which he had represented as a contra. The deed was duly executed, and Mr Barker

received notice. He assented, and was aware that the bank was taking, the composition. He quoted Sec. 7 of the Law Amendment Act, and held that from the date of the signature of the deed the debt owing by Barker became transferred from Rise’ey to King. The purchase of the cheep was admitted, and Mr Barker drew for the full amount. Mr King pointedout that he had omitted to deduct the £92, and sent a cheque for the balance. Case Cochrane v. Green (C.L. Journal, p. 97) cited. After some further remarks, counsel concluded by calling Newton King, auctioneer, New Plymonth I was a creditor of Riseley’s for £320. I received a letter from MuM| Haraerton calling a meeting of Riseley’injH creditors. I was represented by Mr Nolan ™ of Hawera. I attended two meetings at Patea. Prior to that I agreed to purchase the estate at 5s in the £ on bills at three months. A draft deed was sent for approval and I referred it to Mr Samuels who made certain alterations. I attended a meeting at Patea: and refused to complete it. At that time I considered Mr Barker a creditor for £122. The deed was signed ’at the second meeting. Mr Barker was not present, but I believe he was at the first meeting. I first learned that Mr Barker’s claim was founded upon bills after the first meeting, as there was a hitch on account of the bank holding the : bills. The deed was drafted at 5a but was altered to 3s 10d at the meeting. We had a discussion about the bills at the meeting. At the second meeting I learned that Mr Norman had the bills and he said he should claim on- £214. I executed the deed on the same day. I had then no idea that all the debts had not been assigned to me. I understood Barker’s debt of £92 was assigned. Before handing over the promissory notes I enquired who held Mr Barker’s bills. I asked Mr Norman if they had been charged to Mr Barker’s account and he said no. Mr Barber did not contradict him, 1 said that 4f-I paid on the £214 T should certainly , claim the £92. Subsequently I bought some sheep,' and Mr Barker drew on me for the amount, £lßl 7s. I returned the draft as incorrect, and wrote, enclosing my cheque for £B9 7s. There have been no dealings between us since. My letter did not appear to-have turned up for some days, and the first intimation I had of its receipt was a summons. Mr Barber admitted that he owed £92 to Mr Riseley. By Mr.Hamerton ; Had not ascertained that £92 was due by Mr Banker to Mr Riseley’s estate. Had nothing but Mr Riseley’s’word, and no written admission from Mr Barker that the amount was due. Mr Nolan enclosed me a copy of minutes at first meeting. He did not state that Mr Barker’s bills were to be set off against Mr Riseley’s| estate. Remembered the meeting on December 22, when I declined to give 5s in the £. I remember you reading the deed. I believe you read everything over. The reasons I gave for declining to pay 5s was that the season was gone for the horses; secondly, that the bank had put on the screw, and that the stock was not so saleable, and that the wages of the groom and rent of the farm had doubled. These were the reasons given for reducinc the offer to ■ 4s. I said I would sell Barker’s* debt for a five pound note. I did not state to the racing that that was one of ray reasons. Barker was not at the second meeting at all. The deed was drafted at ss, and it was altered at the last moment. Ido not remember giving as a reason that Moreton’s bill for £5 was included in the statement. I knew when I offered the composition that £122 was a balance between the two parties. I made light of Mr Barker’s debt to induce the others to accept the 3s lOd. Until I received * Mr Barker’s account for the sheep I never made any claim on him. I have paid £285 Is lOd, By the deed I obtained the deferred payment land, valued at £350 ; also, Mr Nicholson’s hill of £4O ; there, was also the reaper and binder, valued at £4O, the entires and the season about £4O; and the other horses in all about £6O. That amounted to £530, and the payment had been £285. The hitch referred to was on account of Mr Moreton. T saw Mr Barker at New Plymouth. I might have met him on the Cattle Show ground, but I am under the impression that I did not speak to, him. ’ I don’t think I spoke to him about the claim at all., By Mr Samuel: Five shillings was offered on the draft of the deed, in which Moreton’s amount is included. Have found difficulty in realising. The deferred payment section could not be realised. The speculation was a rash one on ray part, I asked the meeting of creditors if Barker’s debt was worth £5 or £lO, and there was a laugh. They seemed to think it was rather a rash thing to accept a debt of £IOO of Mr Barker’s. There was a good deal of discussion about its being legally recoverable and a good deal of head shaking. At this stage the Court adjourned. After the adjournment John Riseley was called and said: I am a cattle and general dealer residing at Kakaramea. I lately made an assignment to Mr Newton King. At the .time of the assignment about £9O was owing to mo by Mr Barker. It was not disputed by Mr Barker. Mr Hamerton, by ray instructions, convened a meeting of .ray creditors

ami sent me a list of -claims on me. Believe that is the amount (document produced) 1 owed to Mr Barker. What I owed to him was on two bills, which amounted to something like £2OO. The £ll4 mentioned is the difference between: what I owed Mr Barker and what he me. Mr Barker never disputed that he owed me the £92. I think I heard at one of the meetings that Mr Barker disputed the amount with Mr King. Cross-examined:! did not sign the deed intending that Mr King should recover £92 from Mr Barker. Mr Barker paid me the £92 by cheque. At the second meeting of creditors Mrs Nolan, submitted' an offer on : account of Mr King, I don’t think I assigned any book debts. • By, Mr. Samuel : I heard the £92 mentioned at the meeting, and I heard MiBarker admit, that he owed me it on a contra account. Robert Howard Nolan, stated : l am an auctioneer, residing at Hawera. I was a creditor of Mr Riseley, and was present at all the creditors’ meetings. Mr Barker w’as present at two meetings. His claim was set down as £122. It came to my knowledge that he had a claim for a larger amount, but he said there was a contra account. I was subsequently present at a meeting in Patea when the deed was signed. In the meantime the Bank of Australasia claimed on Barker’s bill. Cross-examined : When the deed was signed nothing was said about King recovering ihe money from Barker. At the second meeting Mr Barker’s bills were not mentioned, to my knowledge. This was-the case for the defendant. Mr Hamerton opened his case by calling 0. F. Barker, who stated : I am an auctioneer, residing at Patea. I was a creditor of -Mr Riseley. My claim was put down in his statement at £122. At the second meeting of creditors Mr Nolan made an offer of 5s in the £, which was accepted, subject to my corresponding with Matson and Co., of Christchurch, in order to get their consent. [Witness here an - account of the transaction with Hp. Riseley.] wo. other witnesses were examined ; but their ; evidence, together with the lengthy addreses of counsel, would occupy too much" space were it to be reproduced here. - r •

His Worship deferred judgment' till next Tuesday. JBeere iv. Fleetwood.—This case, which had been : adjourned from Inst week in order to enable a certain plan to be passed, was further adjourned till the 20th inst. Patea Harbour Board v. Barker.—Case adjourned. . ,