RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 966, 3 August 1881, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, GISBORNE.

Tuesday, August 2nd, 1881. [Before M. Price, Esq., R.M.] T. W. Porter v. Hone Papatene. Claim £3 13s Id. £3 having been paid into Court, judgment was entered up for the plaintiff for 13s Id with costs. Cook County Council v. J. Cuff. Claim £3 for rates. Judgment for plaintiff. D. McCarthy v. A. Parnell. Claim £lOO, amount of insurance on house burnt down in Derby-street. Mr. Rees for plaintiff. Mr. Brassey for defendant denied liability, inasmuch as the policy was in the name of the firm ol Parnell and Boylan. From the opening of Counsel it appeared that defendant offered to assist plaintiff in the erection of a house, which was accepted, and the insurance ultimately effected by Mr. Darnell, in an office for which his firm were agents, as the plaintiff understood in his own (plaintiff’s) name, but when the fire occurred he found that Parnell had insured the house in his own name,and refused to hand over the money. Dennis McCarthy, sworn, deposed to having paid Parnell £3B 10s towards building the house, he arranging for the balance with Stevens the contractor, on his (plaintiff’s) account as he (Stevens) was in his debt. He paid Parnell the preinium 2vs, to insure tlie property in his (plaintiffs) name. The house was burnt down in August, 1880. Parnell told him that he had forgot to renew the premium, and the house was not insured. He bad turned it over to Mr. Haase, agent for the South British. Parnell offered me first £lO, and subsequently £22 to settle the matter. Afterwards Parnell told him the money for the policy had been paid into the bank. By Mr Brassey : I swear I paid Parnell 25s to insure the house, and he gave me a receipt

showing the policy was effected in my name. I consider I was entitled to the £lOO because I paid Parnell £3B, and did £23 worth of work on the house. Parnell did not tell me he would place the balance of the insurance to my credit. By Mr Rees : Mr Parnell never laid any claim to the house. I never knew that the firm of Parnell and Boylan had anything to do with the house. I never knew the firm in the matter. H. Haase testified to being agent for the South British Insurance Company in August last, and to paying Parnell £B6 7s on account of the insurance of the house in question. . By Mr Brassey .- I paid Mr Parnell the insurance because the policy was in tlie name of Arthur Parnell. I swear to this positively. A. Parnell, sworn, gave evidence to the effect that he advanced plaintiff some money towards the erection of a sledge house on his (defendant’s) section, and eventually plaintiff arranged with the firm. The sums he paid were credited to his account with the firm. The firm paid Stevens £B6 7s for building the house. McCarthy did not pay me 25s for insurance. By Mr. Rees : We insured the house in our names and paid the premiums as a security for his debt to us. We held no mortgage over the property. I cannot tell how much McCarthy owed the firm when the house was insured. I think it was about £73. After the fire I offered McCarthy money so as to save Court expenses, but it was on account of another matter. We charged McCarthy with the premiums of insurance, although it was the firm’s property, to protect ourselves on his general account in case of fire. By the Court: McCarthy owed the firm £74 when we insured the house—about £lO of which was on current account. When the fire occurred the account stood about the same—including interest and goods, £2l 10s 9d, which, deducted from the £74, leaves a balance due of £52 9s 3d. We received the benefit of the insurance of £B6 7s as against the £74. His Worship summed up, and gave it as his opinion that taking an equitable view of the case he thought Parnell and Boylan had a claim over the insurance, but should enter up judgment for the plaintiff for £23 17s 9d. D. McCarthy v. A. Parnell. Claim £2O odd for labor performed. After hearing evidence, judgment was entered for plaintiff £5 13s 4d. t A. Gillies v. C. W. Buller. Disputed account for driving &c. Mr Rees for plaintiff, Mr. McDougall for the defendant.

A good deal of conflicting evidence was taken on both sides, and judgment was riven for the plaintiff for £4 10s. Hona Hautapu v. G. K. Turton. Claim £43, for the recovery of a chequcAo that amount. Mr. Rees for plaintiff ; Mr. Turton defended himself. W. Banks sworn deposed : I am mailman. I remember plaintiff having received professional advice from the defendant at Tologa Bay. She promised to pay him when the case was over. No amount of fee was named She sued Mr. ;M. Mullooly for wages, and money she had given him to take care of. Hoana Hautapu deposed : I remember defendant acting for me in a case at the Tologa Bay R.M.’s Court, against M. Mullooly. I obtained a verdict that Mullooly should pay everything. Mullooly gave me a cheque for my claim. The cheque is the one produced for £43 in my favor. I took the cheque to my house and put it in my pocket book in my bedroom. I told defendant Mullooly would pay him his fees. Next morning, while I was in bed, defendant and another white man came to the house. I opened the door partially, and they tried to force the door open. They came into the kitchen, and defendant began to play with me. They then went away, but before that I saw defendant put his hand in the door and take something. I missed the purse, and I pursued him and told him he was a thief for taking my pocket book. He gave me the book, but the cheque was gone. I dressed and followed him, and again requested my cheque. Defendant said he would go with me to see Mr Harris after breakfast. Subsequently I gave information to the police. I did not authorize defendant to take the cheque. He had no right to the cheque. By defendant: I recognise this as my sig? nature. I signed the document authorising you to go and get the money. Mullooly had not given me the money when I gave you the order. I caused payment of the cheque to bo stopped. I asked you to return the cheque. G. K. Turton, sworn, deposed to taking the case at Tologa Bay for the plaintiff, and won it, for which he was promised £2 2s, in excess of the usual Court fee, but he gave no reason f° r ‘he cheque. He had not been paid the £2 2s. 1 His Worship said it would have been better it he had not detained the cheque. He held that plaintiff was properly entitled to it, and ordered the return of the cheque to her. 11. Krippner v. A. Matthews. Mr. Brassey for plaintiff ; Mr. Rees for defendant. Claim £7l 5s fo cash advances and labor performed. Herbert Krippner, sworn, deposed to having bought the right of a certain survey at Mangatu, on certain conditions—£3o cash, £lO in three months, defendant to receive 21s a day while employed in plaintiff’s service on the survey. The chief surveyor, Mr H. Baker, subsequently told me Mr Matthews had no right orjauthority to execute the survey. I told the defendant this. I was stopped by Mr Baker from prosecuting the survey, and demanded refund of the money I had paid him, together with expenses, and wages paid, I having organised a party. Mr Baker said he could not say when tlie survey could be executed. By Mr Rees : Nothing was said between us, about authority to survey. It is correct that Mr Matthews said in his letter that Mr Fraser would pay for the survey. I did not speak to Fraser about the payment of the survey. 1 looked to Fraser for payment. On further cross-examination, plaintiff said de-

fendant had acknowledged that the money advanced should be returned, and had promised to square up on a certain day. He wanted to re-purchase the contract. J. O. Barnard, Survey Field Inspector, stated that he learnt Mr Krippner was surveying Mangatu No. 2 block, and told him he had better discontinue, as certificate had not been issued by the survey department. For the defence, A. F. Matthews deposed that the plaintiff came to him and said as he did not like to be idle he offered to buy out my interest in the block in question. My contract was with Fraser and the Natives ; and I all responsibility to defendant, except that of the accuracy of the survey to the Government. Plaintiff told me he knew an authority was required. By Mr Brassey : I had sublet the cutting of the survey before I sold to plaintiff. I have often surveyed blocks and got the authority afterwards. Surveyors often run the risk, and if their plans are not approved by the Government, they lose their work ; but I don’t believe they would lose their license. 1 told Mr Baker I had begun the survey in question, and he said, “ You are quite right, Matthews.” E. A. Featon deposed to the application having been applied for, but Mr. Baker withheld it pending reference to the Land Court. By Mr. Brassey : I do not know that the authority to survey has been absolutely refused. His Worship said he should like to consider the evidence, and clauses of the Native Land Act, and deliver judgment on Friday next. [Left Sitting.]