RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1340, 9 August 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

[Before J. Booth, Esq., R.M,] Tuesday, 7th August. M'Devitt v. Martin. Mr Kenny, for the plaintiff, asked that the case be adjourned, as he expected by the next court day the case would be settled. Adjourned till Tuesday next, the 14th inst. Teat and Fryer v. Cooper. Mr Brassey, for the defendant, said that Mr Greenwood had received notice that evidence would be taken in Wellington, in that case he would be compelled to ask for an adjournment. Adjourned till the l<th instant. M'Devtitt v. Robinson. Enlarged for four weeks, Rees and Others v, M. J. Gannon. Mr Rees for plaintiffs, and Mr M'Dougnl for defendant. This case was adjourned from last Thursday in order that his Worship might consider the point raised of “ interest upon interest,” and decided that it could not be allowed, aud would therefore not allow it. Mr Rees said judgment should be for the full amount. Mr M'Dougal contended that judgment should only be given for the amount confessed, viz., £l4 18s Bd, the defendant having paid £37 7s into court. The question is the balance remaining, viz., £2O 6s Bd, £l4 18s 8d of which is confessed. Mr Rees replied that when the case was first called on nothing was paid in, and not until the ?ase had been adjourned for a fortnight was anything paid. Only a portion was then paid in so the balance being confessed, and again submitted that judgment must be given for the amount claimed when the case was first called on. His Worship decided to give judgment for the full amount, le«s the compound interest £5 Bs, with costs £2 18s. J. W. Nolan v. G. Humphreys. Mr Brassey, for plaintiff, applied that the case stand adjourned as the summons served was incorrect, and in order that another might be issued. Application granted, adjourned till the 10th instant. Thelwall and Co. v. Kerb. Judgment confessed. J. and A. Davis v Holland. Claim, £3 12s 7d. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for plaintiffs for amount and coats, 16s. J. and A. Davis v. Hapikiniha. Claim, £6 6s Bd. No appearance of de» fendant. Judgment for amount with costs. T. W. Porter v.-P. Parau. This was a judgment summons for £53 18s whic't plaintiff sought to recover. Plaintiff deposed that the amount was a balance of money lent which hud been due for the last four years. That the defendant was perfectly able to pay it as he was aware the defendant was in receipt of money, and he also had land ; that he was in debt everywhere, was often intoxicated, and could afford to travel about, as he had of late been frequently taking trips to Wellington. The defendant deposed that he had no money to pay the debt, that he only lived on hia quarterly allowance of £7 10s, and had nothing more. When he had gone to Wellington and Wanganui, Mr Reas had paid his passage, and Mr DeLautour had paid for his board there. An order was made to the effect that the amount be paid on or before this day four months, December 7th, in default of payment 80 days’ imprisonment.

Cameron v. S. M, Wilson. Mr Nolan appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Brassey for defendant. This was a case where one Peter Bri*ngan had sold a horse to the plaintiff, and whioh was afterwards seized under a stock mortgage which hud been exe -uted by tho said Peter Briengan in favor of Kinross and Graham. The horse had then bean told at auction, and defendant had bought it, notwithstanding a protest entered by plaintiff. Mr Cameron, shoepfurmer, deposed—Knew 8. M. Wilson, the defendant, and knew the animal in question now in the possession of the defendant. Had owned the horse himself, and had bought it in Muy last of Peter Briongan, and kept it on his own farm. It was seized with other stock aid taken to Ormond for Kinross, Graham and Co. by Pegley, Asked Pegley for the horse and he refused to give it up. When tho horse was sold at auction he cautioned Wilson and others that the animal was his. Tho horse was worth £25 to £3O, but was not worth so much now. He claimed £lO damages. By Mr Brassey—B, M. Wilson's man told him that the horse was let out. Had no assignment of Peter’s stock. Had a receipt for the horse. He paid with a cheque on the Bank of New South Wales. Hen-ver knew there was a bill of sale in existence. Briegan was now working for him. He bought the freehold about, a fortnight after he bought the stock. The first time he saw the bill wa* in Mr Brassey’s office. He bought the freehold without any encumbrance at all. Mr Peter Briegnan, of TauHka, deposed that he sold the horse in dispute to Mr Cameron about the 4th of May last. He sold other stock at the same time. The horse was eventually seized and sold by Mr Pogley. He received a slip of paper as notice. He was shown the bill of sale. He executed a bill of sale four year ago in favor of Kinross, Graham and Co. He was indebted to them about £4OO at the time. He had other stock there at the time, but they did not sieze all. By Mr Brassey—He did not hand the list to Mr Dufaur. The list was in his handwriting. The security over his leasehold was signed by himself. The horse described in the list was the horse in dispute. Was a relation of Mr Cameron’s. When he sold Cameron the horse he did not mention the bill of sale. He never mentioned it to Cameron. Re examined by Mr Nolan —He made out the list for the purpose of showing the state of his affairs to Kinross, Graham and Co. This closed the plaintiff’s case. Mr Bras-oy addressed the court at some length to shew that the animal was included in the bill of sale, which was a legal bill, and had been lawfully seized and sold. Mr Nolan argued, on the other hand that the purchase by Cameron must be protected. Mr Gruner, bailiff, deposed that he had sold the property under the bill of sale, and remembered S. M. Wilson buying the said horse By Mr Nolan—He received the bill of sale from Mr Dufaur, together with the list. S. M. Wilson deposed—The horse is not damaged. The horse is worth £9, and I will take £9 for him. I never told anyone that I would not take £3O for the horse. Thia closed the defence, and Mr Brassey claimed a nonsuit. Mr Peter Briengan had acted fraudulently in selling the horse, therefore there was no legal sale effected. His Worship said that Mr Cameron was an innocent purchaser, aud gave judgment for plaintiff for £l5, to be reduced to Is if the horse was delivered up within three days, and costs £4 13s. Mr Brassey gave notice of appeal.

Kerr v. Tmelwaw, Withdrawn, C, D. Berry v. Smab«, Mr Finn for plaintiff, and Mr Nolan for defendant. This was a claim for £lOO due to the estate of 8. Roe for goods delivered. Mr Finn submitted that the case was beyond the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that the credits were in the form of a set-off. His Worship said the question was whether the credits are as payments or as | a set-off. I Mr Finn said assuming that the credits stand as payments then it would bo beyond the courts jurisdiction, His Worship asked the counsels to agree to adjourn the case, in order that they might come to some arrangement between themselves in the matter. Mr Finn replied that ha objected to have the case heard in this court, as it would be far better in tho interest of his client to take it to another court. Mr Nolan said if the case was struck out he would ask that costs be not allowed. Mr Finn replied that they had been dragged into court, and submitted that costs should be allowed. The case was struck out, each party paying their own costs,