RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1220, 8 December 1882, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

THIS DAY, [Before M. Price, Esq., R.M.j Harris v. Miti Pavra. Claim £35, for moneys advaneed and services rendered. Mr Nolan for plaintiff, and Mr Kenny and Mr Robinson for defendant. E. Harris, sworn, deposed: lam a licensed Interpreter. Defendant is indebted to me in the sum of £35 4s 6d as a balance of account between us. Mr Robinson cross-examined plaintiff on each separate item in the account, which were as a rule admitted as correct, the defendant taking exception to a few -sums, which Mr Harris explained satisfactorily in nearly every instance. Epiha Parau, sworn, deposed: I know plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff sent me to Tologa Bay on one occasion to obtain defendant’s signature to a document, and paid me £1 10s for going the journey. Miti Patna, sworn, deposed: I am defendant in this action. lam confused about the first item in dispute, £3 : the second item £l, I can’t rsmember; the third item, £l, I don’t remember. It is a long time ago, and I may possibly have received it. Harris was the person I was in the habit of going to for money. Regarding the item of Brown’s account, £3 19s 4d, I was asked personally by Brown two months ago, when I was purchasing a dress, and I paid £2 on account of it. Cross-examined by Mr Nolan : I remember writing to Mr Harris to pay that amount to Brown. I have not had a number of things since from Brown because he stopped my credit when I got into his debt over £3, and when I reduced that amount he gave mo further credit.

His Worship said that unless satisfactory evidence were produced regarding the items £2 10s for rent and £3 19s 4d for Brown’s account he should strike it out of plaintiff s acsount. In accordance with Mr Nolan’s request he would adjourn the case till this day week.

ROBINSON V. BROOKING. Claim £5, for detention of a Deed of Conveyance from Hohepa Winikora Peti Moreti an cl also for a return of the Deed. Each party represented their own cause. Mr Brooking alleged in defence that he was entitled to retain the deed. W. R. Robinson, sworn, deposed : I am the plaintiff in this action. On or about October last Mr Brooking came to my office and asked me how much I would charge to draw a conveyance from Hohepa Winikora to Peti Moreti. 1 asked him who had sent it to me, and he said Peti Moreti. I drew the deed and handed it to Mr Brooking to get it executed, as he was the interpreter in the matter. I saw’ Mr Brooking afterwards and he said he sent it down to Napier for stamping. I found that by next Mail that the deed had come back from Napier, and requested Mr Brooking to give it me back. He refused to give it up. Cross-examined by Mr Brooking : lou told me Peti Moreti sent you to me. I never agreed on a fixed amount for the deed. I never told you to send it to Napier to get it stamped. I never agreed to charge only £4 4s. I looked fto Peti Moreti for the money. You said to me in the street afterwards you would give me a cheque, but not the deed. You never tendered me formally a cheque. John Broking, sworn : I am defendant in this action. In accordance with the wishes of Peti Moreti I instructed Mr Robinson to draw a deed of conveyance of a small interest in the Haumautuku No. 4 block. . She told me to get a solicitor. Mr Robinson came to my office, and I asked him if he would allow me to get the deed stamped and registered ; he agreed, and said his charge would be £4 4s ; he said that being the lawyer drawing the deed he could not attest signatures. I got them attested and sent the deed to Napier. Mr Robinson asked me where the deed was and I told him in Napier, and that I was prepared to give him a cheque for it. He said that could stand over for a bit. He afterwards came to me and asked me for the deed. I again offered him a cheque and he said he didn’t want the cheque, he wanted the deed. Shortly afterwards I received a notice from Mr Robinson that he required the deed handed back to him. I was engaged in the Trust Commissioner’s Court at the time, and would not leave. I afterwards met Mr Robinson in the street with Mr Gannon. I told him again I was prepared to give him a cheque for his expenses, but thought myself entitledjto retain the deed.

Cross-examined by Mr Robinson : I am not a lawyer and not entitled to draw deeds or act as a lawyer. Ido not remember an item of £1 Is in your charges for application to the Trust Commissioner. Ido not know how the charge of £4 4s was made up. I cannot remember what you said. I did not expect you to apply for the certificate. The specific* sum of £4 4s was named as the price of drawing the deed, and making the statutory declarations and attestations. Mr Robinson addressed the Court, and urged that until the deed is properly completed and paid for it remained his property, and he was liable at law for its proper completion and legality. His Worship said that he would reserve his judgment until Tuesday.