RESIDENT MAOIST RATE’S COURT.-GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1207, 21 November 1882, Page 2

RESIDENT MAOIST RATE’S COURT.-GISBORNE.

Tins Day. ["Before M. Price, Esq., R.M.] Civil Cashs. ! creditors’ trustee in uaulto.x’s estate V. F. TIETZGEN. Claim £5 ss, for threshing. Mr Brassey appeared for Mr Nolan for the I plaintiff, and Mr Kenny for the defendant. • Several witnesses were called on either i side, and the evidence was of a somewhat I contradictory character. • The evidence adduced on both sides having I been concluded, the learned counsel on ■ cither side addressed the Court. The Resident Magistrate gave judgment • for the amount paid into Conrt[ 5s : the i coats to be paid by plaintiff. Costs of Court : and witnesses expenses, £3 2s, and counsel’s ' fee, £1 Is, G, L. GREENWOOD V. THOMPSON. Damages £lOO, Mr Brassey for plaintiff, Mr Kenny for defendant. Mr Brassey called J. R. Davies, who deposed that he was adjudicated bankrupt by the Registrar. He contracted, previous to this, to build a bridge over the Taraheru River. The instruments for swinging the j bridge are not left on the bridge—the box key or spanner and a lever, also two chains and padlocks. The value of the lot is about £3. They could be made for £3. The bridge was never out of his (witness’s) charge until plaintiff took possession. From the completion of the bridge up to January, 1882, Messrs. McAulay and Shepherd were there, and after that Mr Thompson was there, | placed in charge by him (plaintiff). He i (plaintiff) had a claim against Mr Rees and ’ others for the erection of the bridge. Mr I Rees paid Thompson. Never delivered the ! bridge over except to Thompson (defendant). Mr Finn told Thompson (defendant) not to give the keys up to plaintift’. Plaintiff has been paying defendant for looking after the bridge. By Mr Kenny : The contract for building the bridge mas with Mr Rees on behalf of the Native Trustee. The amount was £2OO. I offered to take cash in hand. That sum has not been paid to me. Ido not know whether it has been paid to Mr Holt. I deny that the bridge is the property of Mr Rees. Wages are owing to Thompson from 15th August up to the time he was paid by plaintill’. The authority to allow persons to cross the bridge camo from Mr Rees's office. Defendant was placed there by me. 1 had not paid defendant so I asked Mr Rees to pay defendant for me out of the moneys owing me. I have never been asked to furnish an account. I did so some few weeks ago. After I had been adjudicated a bankrupt, Mr Rees sent two cheques to the defendant and tried to get possession of the bridge. By Mr Brassey : I claim £2OOO for my contract. I never delivered up the bridge. By the Court: I did not allow traffic over the bridge because the matter had not been settled. G. L. Greenwood stated he was Clerk of the District Court. No trustee having been appointed he took formal possession of the bridge, and as trustee in bankruptcy placed defendant in charge of the bridge at £3 aweek. He produced receipts of payment. He (witness) paid up to 13th November and then demanded the implements now sued for. Defendant refused to give the property up. Saw defendant subsequently, when Mr Finn and last witness were present. Mr Finn said that defendant had a lien on the property in question, and he had been been advised not to give the property up. There is a barrier across the bridge. This was the plaintiff's case. Mr Kenny submitted that there was a question involved as to the title of the bridge, and quoted authorities on the subject, and , applied for a non-suit. I His Worship refused a nonsuit, and called I W. L. Rees, who stated he was a Barrister j and Solicitor in Gisborne. He had arranged with Mr Davies to build the bridge for £1970. This sum had been paid, and he (witness) placed defendant in charge of the bridge Never admitted the claim ; of Air Davies. He had never acknowledged Davies’s claim.

By Mr Brassey: The Government had granted permission to build the bridge, and it was vested in the Company. Thompson went in as my servant. Alexander Thompson, defendant, called and stated he was placed in charge of the bridge in February, 1882, with instructions from Mr Davies to look after it. He (witness) got £3 a week from Mr Rees. When he (witness) was in charge by plaintiff as Trustee he was paid by plaintiff. He claimed £3l for wages. He kept the articles in dispute as a lien for wages. Cross-examined by Mr Brassey : If plaintiff gave me £3l now I would give up the keys. I did not prove in Davies’ estate. Davies put me in possession and I was acting under his control. Davies employed me and gave me orders, and Mr Rees paid. I refuse to give up the keys because I have not been paid my £3l for wages due to me. This was the defendant’s case.

Mr Kenny addressed the Bench on behalf of the defendant. Mr Brassey followed on behalf of the plaintiff. His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for £3, to he reduced to one farthing, if the keys are delivered up by 12 o’clock tomorrow.

The case of J. Cresswell aud B. C. Fryer was called on. This was an interpleader

[ case. i Mr Kenny appeared for Air. Cresswell, ; and Air Brassey for Air Fryer. ! The case arose out of the seizure of the celebrated racehorse, “ Filthy Lucre.” Mr Kenny called Air Cresswell, who stated that he claimed a chesnut mare commonly known as Filthy Lucre, seized by the bailiff at the suit of Mr Fryer, and that in the month of September Mr Towsey, wanting to borrow some money, applied to Air Cresswell, who refused to lend it. Subsequently Towsey offered to sell his horse for the sum of £4, aud signed the sale note produced. He (Mr Cresswell) then took formal delivery of the horse, and at the request of Mr Towsey lent it to him until he (Mr Cresswell) had use for it himself. The horse has been in Air Towsey’s possession ever since. When it was ascertained that the horse had been seized by the bailiff, he (Air Cresswell) demanded the horse without success, and then instituted these proceedings. Air Towsey was next witness, and was | : severely cross-examined on the point as to I i whether Air Cresswell was to give him back i , the horse on payment of £4 which he denied. I Air Cecil Ward proved that the horse was I | sold on the day mentioned in the receipt. I i This was the plaintiff’s case. Air B. C. Fryer was called, and stated I I that when he was issuing the summons ! against Towsey he saw Air Cresswell and j that at that time he never said that the I horse belonged to him and not to Towsey. ' Air Brown, assistant clerk, ami Air E. j Gruner, the bailiff, corroborated Mr Fryer’s evidence. I 4he Resident Magistrate stated that the I evidence of the plaintiff and his witness was beyond doubt, and the verdict of the Court Court would be that the horse be returned to Air Cress well, and the costs, £2 2s, be paid by Mr Fryer.