RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 923, 5 March 1881, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, GISBORNE.

Thursday, March 3rd, 1881. [Before M. Prick, Esq., R.M.] Henry Finch was fined 40s. and costs for assaulting a Native woman named Nepia. A boy named George Garry was sent to the Industrial Home at Auckland, for stealing a box of figs from W. Judd’s store Gladstone Road. A. charge of duck shooting against James King, made by a Native woman named Hapikar‘l, w r as dismissed. Friday, March 4th. Abraham Skillicorn was fined os, and costs, 75., for neglecting to register his infant. J. DICK V. WI TAKO Judgment summons. Claim £lO 7s. 6d. Sentence deferred to ascertain defendant’s means of paying. C. P. BROWNE V. REBECCA. Claim 12s, for photography. Judgment confessed. TERANHI V. ARIKI TUTU. Claim £2for the loss of a pet lamb alleged to have been killed by the defendant’s dog. After hearing the evidence the Bench dismissed the. case. j .1 G. K. TURTON V. E. ff. WARD.

Mr. Nolan for plaintiff, Mr. Brassey for defendant. Claim £37 4s. 3d. Amount of Promissory Note, and interest, given to Mr. C. Priestly by defendant, and handed ,tq the plaintiff. . . , From the evidence of plaintiff it appeared that he came into possession of the note by it being handed to him in payment of professional fees, by Mr. C. Priestly, his client. He (Priestly) understood that the bill had not been paid, and that he had not had credit given him for it. Plaintiff took the bill, and applied to Ward for payment. Ward replied in writing that Priestly had had credit given to him in his defendant’s books for sums long owing to him, and that Priestly was still indebted to liim. By Mr. Brassey : I know that in taking bills of this kind I am bound to make enquiries about them. I have acted professionally for Mr. Priestly, exclusively, since the third week in January. I don’t think any of the money due on this bill will be owing to Mr. Priestly. There is a memorandum attached to the bill defendant agreeing with Priestly’s consent to pay interest at the rate of 12| p.c. on the amount until the bill was paid. (On reading the memorandum it was found to be inadmissible through being unstamped) I looked through Mr. Priestly’s books with Mr. Berry, Priestley’s agent, and could not find any credit having been given for the bill. Priestly is indebted to me in the sum of the bill, but I have not rendered him my bill „of costs. I applied to Priestly for £2O or £25 on account, and the bill was given to me on account. I have not agreed with Priestly that in the event of my losing this action, he is to pay costs. C. Priestley, on affirmation, said that the plaintiff applied to Mr. Berry, witness’s agent, for £2O or £25 on account. Mr. Berry said it would be inconvenient, but suggested that Ward’s acceptance (now four years overdue) should be looked up. Witness took the bill and endorsed it to Mr. Turton. The bill was lying at the Union Bank where I lodged it for payment. I asked at the Bank if the bill had been paid. When I found it had not been paid, I took it and presented it to Ward, who said it was not convenient to pay it, but if Mr. McDonald had been in Gisborne, he

could have got the money. Ward said it would make no difference, as he would pay 12| per cent, interest on it. A lengthy argument took place, at this stage as to whether the document attached to the bill by Mr. Ward was an agreement or riot. The Bench ruled that the document required a stamp, and could not be admitted in evidence. I have not had credit given to me by Mr. Ward, for the bill now sued for. I know of no other money I owe to Ward. I have not authorised Ward to credit me with the bill. I dispute the correctness of Ward’s account. By Mr. Brassey : Ward told me he had given me credit for the bill in his account with me. That is the reason I let the maftef stand over for 4 years. Had he credited me with it, I should not owe him so much as he claims. The entry in Ward’s account of £25 in March 1878 was • received far rent due to me from Loisel. The credit entry £3O 18s in the same account cannot be from Loisel. I cannot say if I paid Ward £25 or £26 10s, for which he gave me the bill. I have lent defendant other money besides that represented in the bill. I don’t recollect the bill being handed to me by the Bank before it became due. It had been overdue two or three days, when I got it and took it to Ward. I did not take the bill a second time to Ward for payment. For the Mr. Brassey contended that the bill had been credited to plaintiff by defendant; and that the bill had not been dishonored. J. Bourke, accountant at the Union Bank, proved that the bill was due on the 7th February, 1877, but was taken out of the Bank on the 22nd January, 1877. I cannot say if it was dishonored. There is no entry in the Bank books of dishonor. 4 L By Mr. Nolan : I don’t know why it went back to the Bank.

E. ff. Ward, deposed to having had £25 from Priestley. The 30s is for interest. He gave a bill to him for the amount. It was not dishonored. He arranged with Priestley before it became due, to let it stand over for three months. The reason there is no date of the credit entry of £25 is owing to its being a private transaction with Priestley. By Mr. Nolan : The reason I did not give Priestley credit for the interest was because the interest item, has never been adjusted. The £25 was credited in the 1876 account. The bill was not due till February, 1877. Bedford Sherriff proved to his acquaintance with the transaction of the £25 borrowed from Priestley by the defendant, and when the accounts were made out by him, Priestley was credited in due course. He could not positively swear it was the same £25 borrowed from Priestley, but he was morally certain it was. ; >■ ‘ G. L. Greenwood, Clerk of the Court, proved to the sum of £3O 18s, judgment' in re Priestley v. Loisel, having been taken out of Court by Priestlv on the 7th February, 1877. Counsel having addressed the Court, His Worship reserved his decision until next Friday, to alow counsel for plaintiff to cite cases in support of his contention that although Ward had credited Priestley with the amount of £25, as it was only part of the bill, he, Ward, was still liable.