DISTRICT COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1176, 16 October 1882, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT, GISBORNE.

Before his Honor Judge Macdonald.) CIVIL CASES. Adair v. hohepa raihi. Claim £2OO. In this case Mr Brassey appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Kenny for tile defendant. A long discussion ensued as to whether it was necessary that the claim should have been translated into Maori. Mr Kenny stated this case was beyond the jurisdiction of the court, seeing that the original amount was for £273 0s 9d. There were certainly several credits given which were not admitted, so that relying on the case of Hepburn v. Fisher, he considered that His Honor’r jurisdiction was ousted. Mr Brassey stated that they abandoned the excess. His Honor said that they only abandoned part of the excess. Mr Kenny said that he would argue that His Honor had no jurisdiction. His Honor was of the same opinion, and nonsuited the plaintiff with costs. MULLOOLEY V. COOPER. Claim for £124 9s 9d for goods supplied. Mr Kenny appeared for the plaintiff, Mr Brassey for the defendant. Mr Kenny stated that this case had been adjourned from the last sitting of this Court by Judge Hardcastle. Mr Brassey said that proceedings in bankruptcy were now pending in the Court of Appeal. Mr Kenny said that the defence had not been filed in time. After hearing plaintifi’s evidence, His Honor gave judgment for full amount, and costs of Court £2 Is, counsel’s fee £6 4s, the defendant being allowed £2 10s. E. K. BROWN V. MCQUIRIES. Claim £2OO for promissory note and interest thereon. Mr Nolan appeared for the plaintiff. His Honor pointed out that in this case he had no jurisdiction, seeing that the interest was claimed upto the 15tli of June, so that there was still some money due and owing for interest at the time the summons had been taken out but at the time the summons was issued there was one week’s interest due. If the plaintiff had abandoned all claim to interest up to the date of taking out the summons, then he could have entertained. However he would hear the case and consider it afterwards,

Plaintiff gave his evidence and proved the sum due. His Honor gave judgment for the full amount, with costs £l3 6s. MILNER V. COOPER. Claim for £54 10s. Mr Kenny appeared for the plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed with costs. TRIMMER V. BAIHANIA HANOI. Mr Kenny for plaintiff. He stated that the promissory note in this case had been lost. Adjourned until the afternoon to allow an affidavit to this effect to be made. SAME V. MARTIN TAI. Claim £4O 7s Id on two promissory notes and interest. Mr Kenny for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff for £4O 7s Id, with costs of Court, and counsel’s fee £3 3s, witness £1 Is, Interpreter’s fee, £1 Ils 6d. SAME V. BABAITIOUA. Claim £67 15s on dishonored promissory note. Mr Kenny for plaintiff £2 5s had been paid. Judgment for plaintiff for £65 10s and costs of Court, counsel’s fee £3 ss. ALLANACH V. PAORA PARAU. Claim £BO 10s, for goods supplied. Mr Kenny for plaintiff. Defendant appeared and admitted the amount claimed. Counsel’s fee £4’ and costs £3 4s 6d. REEVES V. ARAPITU RAOUBINA Claim £157 14s. Mr Nolan for plaintiff, Mr Rees for defendant. Judgment for plaintiff for £157 14s, with csts £l4 19s. ADAIR V. REES. Mr Brassey for plaintiff; Mr DeLatour for defendant. Mr DeLautour objected to the jurisdiation of the court, seeing that the amount involved was in excess of the jurisdiction, even although it was partly admitted, and quoted authorities to show that the jurisdiction of this court was ousted as the actual amount in dispute was £237 10s lid. His Worship agreed with the learned counsel for the defendant, and ordered the case to be struck out with costs. PORTER AND CROFT V. CLARKE AND DOBBIE. Claim £l3O for commission. Mr Kenny for plaintiffs, with him Mr Ward ; Mr Brassey for the defendants. This was a claim for commission at the ratu of 1 pel cent on the sale of the defen dants’ run by the plaintiffs to Mr J, D. Ormond.

The sale was denied, as well as all the allegations in the plaintiffs' allegations, Mr Kenny having opened the case on behalf of the plaintiffs, called T. W. Porter, who stated: I am one of the plaintiffs, commission agents in Gisborne. On the 11th September, 1882, I met defendant Dobbie and read a copy of the letter produced to him. I explained to him that Mr Ormond and I had been to visit the run in question. He said, after some conversation, that he would see his partner on the subject of the run. On the 14th of October both defendants came in to my office, and gave me the particulars, sale resulted to Mr Ormond, and if they got their price £13,000, after shearing, they would let the property go. They gave me the particulars which I copied into my pocket-book now produced. It there states that the lease was complete with the exception of one signature. (Particulars read.) Defendant Clark asked me my commission and I said 1 per eent. amounting to £l3O. I called out to Croft, and he said the commission would be £l3O. Went to Wellington a few days after that and on my way sawMr Ormond at Napier and showed him the particulars of the transaction. Mr Ormond noted everything and agreed to everything, but said he wanted delivery before instead of after shearing. De-

fendant Clark objected to Mr Ormond’s proposal re delivery before shearing. I then drafted telegram to Mr Ormond in Clark’s presence and sent a telegram to Mr Ormond. (Several telegrams were here produced respecting the transaction). Was not aware that the Native Reserve was not part of the run. I had nothing whatever to do with Mr Ormond ; he paid me no commission. I I never spoke to Mr Ormond until I was authorised by the Defendants. The Court then adjourned until 1.45 p.m.