SUPREME COURT.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 22, 15 December 1883, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

(Before His Honor Judge Prendergast.) THURSDAY. (Continued from Supplement.) On the Court resuming this morning, Mr. Kenny asked permission to recall Tuta Nihoniho, who stated that he was not present in Mr. Ward’s office on the 6th of October. He spoke to Jury on that day, and told him he was going to pay Mr. Ward £6O. Mr. Ward’s cross-examination was then proceeded with by Mr. DeLautour, when all the accounts were minutely gone into. Went

to Auckland on the 12th, and left on the 18th, The Puketauhinu accounts were then gone into. Received £3B from Captain Porter on account of Tuta, but when the promissory note for £250 was settled, he made arrangements with Captain Porter to repay the £3B. He positively denied ever receiving the £6O in Page’s hotel. Receive** Haig’s money and this £3B before he went to Opitiki. He considered himself bound to see the whole matter through for the £250. He thought Captain Porter was in error in Stating that he had paid for the petition. He was sure Captain Porter had not paid for the petition. He had only received one sum of money from Captain Porter. He was certain that Jury had not told him that the Natives would pay him the money that day in Page’s hotel. Mr. Woon and several Natives called on him that day. Lysner, the office-boy, who kept the call-book, was pot to be found, Mr DeLautour asked that the Court recall Jury and ask whether he did not convey the above information to Mr Ward. The Court wished to know when Lysnar had left Mr Ward’s employ, and was informed about Oct. 27th. Witness here produced a document which he alleged had been executed in his office on the lame day on which the L6O was said to have been paid. Tuta, Mr Woon and others were present. Had singled Tuta out for judgment in the dishonored P.N. for £250, because he was the leading man in the affair. Major Ropata was concerned. Mr Kenny acted under his instructions. The reason why the Hautura deed was not taken before the Trust Commissioner was because it was not stamped. By Mr Kenny—Tuta was in my office on the 6th October for about three-quarters of an hour, Mr Woon was there and interpreted the agreement produced. His brother Cecil was there also. There was also an entry in his diary, Had no doubt about the matter. Nothing was said by Tuta about the £6O. When Tuta says he was not there he states what is false. By the Court—Then, Mr Ward, you swear that you never received £6O then or at any other time ? Mr Ward—l never received it at any time. Had sued Tuta for the L3B P.N. and the case was standing over until the present case was settled. Mr Haig (called and examined by Mr Kenny)—Was a government surveyor. Tuta had told him that Mr Ward was suing him, and he (witness) gave him LlOO in two amounts of L5O. Tuta said he was in t?ouole with Mr Ward. Saw Tuta in December. Tuta never asked him for money after the 25th of December. By Mr DeLautour—Did not know of his own knowledge whether Tuta had paid Mr Ward any money on the 6ih October. Mr Woon, licensed interpreter, remembered something about the 6th October. Saw by diary that it was in the office of Mr Wards. Had no doubt whatever about it. Tuta was present, was in the afternoon. Could not remember whether anything was said about paying Mr Ward L6O. By Mr DeLautour— Was under the impression it was after four o’clock. A. McDonald —Remember being in Auckland with Mr Ward about March, 1882. He thought he introduced Tuta and Ward to Mr Bryce. He remembered Tuta and Mr Berry asking for money at the Northern Club. Mr Ward asked him to give him his (McDona’d’s) cheque, beci ase he was better known and could get it more easily cashed. He did so. It was for about L2O. Mr Haig here produced the date of the first cheque, which was the ? s j Mi y, 1882. E. Waid—Knew the document produced Took notice of dishonored note for £250 t( plaintiff and explained the purport of it He said that Mr Haig would pay the amount Told him to give his answer on the back o the notice of dishonour. He wrote it in hi: (witness’s) presence some time in the montl of January. Was at a meeti' g of Native about Octobjr. Remembered the Native, taxing Tuta with making away with eom<

money. He understood that Tuta had received money f'om the Natives to give to Mr Ward, but had kept the money. To Mr DeLautour—Had seen the bill produced tor L 250. Saw it in Opotiki i n Sept., 1882. This was after the meeting mentioned. Left Gisborne for Opotiki to let his brother know when he would be wanted there. Went to Opotiki. When there was asked by Tuta and others when his brother was coming. He said shortly. His brother was wired to. The Natives told him they would give his brother L 250 if he would conduct their case there. They signed the promissory note. The natives knew all about this P.N. They did not seem to hesitate in giving it after explaining eve>y thing to them. The document was not translated by a third party, but he did so distinctly. 8. Locke I know a block called Hautua Block, and had a lien on it. To Mr DeLautour—His lien on one block was not registered. Purchased it from the Government. The real lien was the proclamation. Had no documentary lien. D. Page—Knew a large room on the right hand side as you enter from front street, in his hotel. In October, 1882, he was using that room as dining-room. The contractors had the room. He generally kept the door of the room locked. Tea would be laid about | an hour before tea-time. At this time it would be hardly likely for Natives to go into that room with a big jug of beer. C. Ward—Served the writ of summons on Tuta Nihoniho in the case of the Bank of New Zealand against him for £250. It was at Aku Aku. Mr Cresswell and a native were present when he did so. Tuta said he was sorry he had not paid the money, but he would come down and see Mr Ward at once. This was at Easter time, 1883. He read the Maori translation on it before he said he would pay. He spoke to him in broken English. On the 6th of October saw the plaintiff in the defendant’s office. Mr Woon was with him. They all left the office together, about closing time, which must have been considerably after four o’clock.

To Mr. DeLautour—On the 29th February he had no entry in the diary with regard to the Puketanhinu Block. J. Creswell—Was an articled clerk to Mr. Ward. Went up to the Court with Mr. C. Ward to serve Tuta. Was present when it was served. Heard what passed. Tutu looked at the writ. Mr. C. Ward explained that it was a summons for £250. Tuta said he was sorry, and would come and see to it. Was present on the 37th March when there was a settlement, when accounts were gone into fully. By Mr. DeLautour—Tuta said he was very sorry and Mr. Ward ought to have had his money, Mr. Grey, re-called—There was a survey lien on the Hautura Block of £36 ss, which was satisfied on August Bth. This completed the case for the defence. Mr. Jury re-called—Was aware of all the transactions between Tuta and Mr. Ward. Tuta told him (witness), to go and tell Mr. Ward that he (Tuta) had some money to pay him. Went and told Mr. Ward, and Mr. Ward came to Page’s hotel. It was somewhere about four o’clock. He (witness) went with Ward to Page’s and saw Tuta and Me. Ward shake hands. He went and left Ward and Tuta together. Tuta said it was money he had collected from his own people for the Puketauhiuu Block, He was not sure of the time of year. The Natives were covered with mud. It was before the Lauds Court at Opotiki. Went up the coast afterwards for two months.

By Mr. Kenny—When up the coast he heard some grievance about the money the Natives had handed over to Tuta to pay for the Tuta explained to the Natives atJL- hareponga how he had paid the Tuta was very angry. Was suretnat it was before he went to Opotiki. Mr, Kenny then addressed the Court. The case resolved itself into the consideration of the £5O received from Huig, and the £6O. After the whole of the acccounts had been gone into in the most minute manner, the only account in dispute was the £3B. It was impossible to doubt that the receipts and the whole of the transactions had been properly translated to the plaintiff. Every document possible had been produced. It had aot been shown that the plaintiff was a creditor. In fact it was shown that plaintiff had been overpaid £lO and upwards. Tuta came into court with soiled hands. A man who could act in such a manner as plaintiff had done in the matter of Rupena’s cheque would be guilty of anything. Mr Ward had paid the survey money to Mr Locke, and it

was only fair that the Natives should be made to repay the sum. A full and complete set tlement had been made on the 16th March. The £5O received from Haig had been paid away, and £2 10s, in excess, to the Auckland lawyers. A letter to this effect had been written to Tuta. The only money the defendant had received was the £5O and the £250. His Honor remarked that solicitors in the Native Lands Court must either make a special agreement for a lump sum or else have their bills taxed. It appeared that in this case only £llO out of the £250 ought to be claimed, as the business had not come to a successful termination. Mr Kenny said that the only difficulty was the £6O, and no man would go into that box and swear that he had not received the £6O in the face of the opposing evidence of several witnesses if he had not truth on his side. The learned gentleman then called attention to the positive proof that, in spite of Tuta’s oath to the contrary, he (Tuta) was most certainly in Mr Ward’s office on the evening of the 6th October. He then pointed to Mr Page’s evidence as to the room- The Natives had all told the same tale because they had heard Tuta give his evidence. Mr Kenny then adverted to the evidence of Mr Jury as to the meeting in Page's being before the Opitiki Land Court sitting. Another point of importance Was that when the writ was served on Tuta he (Tuta) had not said one word as to the £5O. The single evidence of Mr Ward had been amply confirmed by Mr Cresswell and Mr E. and C. Ward. Mr DeLautor did not think it necessary to apologise for the length of the case. * He would fail in his duty did he not go fully into such a grave charge against u brother professional. There was only about three questions to be considered. As to the agreement Mr Jury had interpreted, his story was that a sum was named of £llO to go along with. That this sum was for Mr. Ward to go to Auckland. It had been attempted to prove that Mr Ward did not go to Auckland. But Mr Ward had ultimately amended this statement by saying that he had gone to Auckland with Tuta. Mr Ward had dropped the £llO altogether out of sight, and had instructed his brother to get £250 before he would go to Opotiki. The Natives say that £llO was to be paid if r ou-successful, and £250 if successful. The £250 P.N. had been taken as security before Mr Ward would go to Opotiki. He could not reconcile the different stories, and must le" ve that to the Court. Tuta denied their liabilities to Jackson and Russell. It was proved that Mr Haig’s money had been paid be. ore the Auckland account had been incc red. Mr DeLautour then reverted to the fact that the Natives could not speak as to the date on wt ! ch the £6O waspaid. There was no positive evidence as to the day on w lich the moaey was paid. What possible inducement cor’d all the.e Nativeshave to . swear falsely. Jury had sworn that Tuta had told him that he (Tuta) was to pay some

money, and that Ward and Jury had gone to Page’s to receive money, Jury’s evidence could not ho relied upon, as his position was difficult. Tuta had, late in the day. found out what bad company he was in. The survey-money should not be allowed. Capt. Porter said that he held all the Natives who had signed the bill liable, and the Natives were in considerable peril. He (Mr. Delautour) asked for a judgment for the money paid by Mr. Haig, as it was paid on account of the £llO. Mr. vvard had really been paid £398, besides the money paid by Capt. Porter. The Court adjourned until Friday, N,B,N,L,y. COMPANY AND P, BARKER V, M, J. GANNON. Mr W. L. Rees for the plaintiff and Mr W. R. Robinson for the defendent. Claim, possession of land on Whataupoko, Judgment for plaintiff by consent, with costs £3O. J. TUTCHEN V. E. CAMERON. Mr Finn for plaintiff and Mr E. ff. Ward for defence. Claim £3OO and possession of land. Judgment for plaintiff, and £3O costs. MULLOOLY V. JURY. Mr Edwards, instructed by Mr H. J Finn, for the plaintiff, and Mr W. L. R ee j for the defence. Claim £165 2s 6d, for debt. Mr Edwards stated the defence was that defendant had filed a statement of insolvency and he would ask that the plea be proved. ’ Mr W. L. Rees said defendant had filed his statement of insolvency in April 28, 1880. The defendant had not obtained his discharge. He pleaded the insolvency as a bar to the action.

Mr Edwards contended that hi 3 learned friend should have proceeded unde r the 21th and 25th section of the Debtor and Creditors Act, 1876, if he wished to plead the insolvency as a bar. Under the present plea it could not be any bar. If the point was decided against him (Mr Edwards), the only point for His Honor to decide was whether the defendant had obtained his discharge. The de<-d (produced) had been executed and the bankruptcy annulled, and Mr Jurv had continued to snap his fingers at his creditors. The deed contained no discharge. The trustees in the deed found nothing to administer. Mr. Ratcliffe, trustee under the deed : All that the trustees had been enabled to realise was about £l5, and that amount had been consumed in expenses of executing the deed. Found great difficulty in obtaining information from Mr. Jury. Mr. Jury examined: The asset of £514 12s 9d due to the estate was a good one. Did not know the answer Mr. Rees had made to the claim. Had leased all his interests in the blocks to Tulley, of Greytown.

By Mr. Rees ; Had given every assistance to the trustees.

Mr, Rees contended that the deed giving up the whole of the defendant’s property would act as a discharge to the bankrupt. The consideration of points of law was adjourned to Wellington, to be disposed of in banco under Bankruptcy. Judgment for £4 16s and costs £3. Providing the judgment of the Court in Wellington be for over £5O, the judges to assess costs. FINN V. WI HARONGA. Mr. Edwards for plaintiff, and Mr. Rees for defendant. Claim £lB7 12« Bd, for debt. The defence was that the bill of costs had not been taxed. He would ask that the usual order for taking the costs be made. Mr. Edwards asked that the amount be brought into Court. There had been ample time given, six months, to tax the costs. Judgment for amount, and costs in case to be subject to taxation according to regular scale. TUCKER V. WI BARONE. Mr. Rees for plaintiff, and Mr, Edwards and Mr. Brassey for defendant. Claim £485 7a for detinue. Mr, Rees applied for an adjournment until next sessions in consequence of the absence of a material witness, Mr. Edwards asked for costs, having come into Court fully prepared to go on. Adjourned until next sessions, coats to abide decision, N, ». N. L. 8. COMPANY V. WEBTRUP,

Mr. W L. Rees for plaintiff Company, and Mr. Finn for defendant, Claim, possession of 4950 acres, Settled out of Court, MULLOOLY V. R. FINLAY.

Mr H. J. Finn for plaintiff and Messrs Edwards and Brassey for defendant. Claim, £3OO rent and possession of premises. After a discussion between counsel, Mr Edwards informed the Court that parties had come to an arrangement to quash all actions in the matter ; defendant to pay £35 costs. TUTCHEN V. CHELTENAM. Messrs Finn and Edwards for plaintiff. Claim possession of land, G. Jackson gave the defendant £32 lOsto buy him (witness) some land. Cheltenham bought the land for witness and he put Mills in possession of it, He had since sold the land to Mr Tutchen. There were no lawyers in Gisborne then, and it would be a good job if there were none here now, Judgment for plaintiff. MAUDE V. REES. Mr. Edwards and Brassey for the plaintiff and Mr. DeLautour for the defence. Claim £1,015 18s, for rent and damages. Mr. Edwards in stating his case explained the previous actions of ejectment. Mr. Maude, plaintiff, in this case, bought the premises in question from Mr. (s'ooper on April 9, 1880. They consisted of two shops on the ground-fluor, and eight offices upstairs in the occupation of Mr. Ward Winter and Haig, and Cooper. After witness had acquired possession of the premises, Mr. Bees took the premises down stairs, and one day on going upstairs the person sitting at the table (G. V. Day), shut the door in his face, and witness slapped his (Day’s) face fpr the act. Mr. Rees remained in possession until November last, when he (Bees), was dislodged by the bailiff. Mr. Rees had held possession of the premises for three and a-half years, and had let the various rooms and took the rents. The premises were let for £3 5s upstairs, and downstairs at £2 15s per week.

By Mr. DeLautour—Had heard Mr. Rees swear that Adair had let him in, and had also heard Mr Rees swea? that Mr Adair had not let him (Rees) in. Had made up Mr Adair’s bills. Had heard Mr Rees swear that Mr Adair had handed him the key in the street. By Mr. Edwards—Mr Rees had also sworn that he had got possession from Road’s Trustees. Mr F. Dufaur, land agent, had considerable experience, and had been nine and threequarter years in Gisborne. Knew Cooper’s buildings, and that Mr Rees had been in them. The value of the premises downstairs was about £2 per week, the eight rooms upstairs about £2 per week. Mr. Ratcliffe—Knew Cooper’s buildings, and collected rents for Mr Maude. Commenced in July 1880. Had got rent from Haig and Hartnett, up to September 1880. Mr Rees took possession of all the rooms. Thought Mr Rees got in before July from Mr Adair. Would value the premises at about £5 per week. Each room was worth fully 7s per week on the average. The whole

of the rooms were occupied by Mr Rees and his clerks and tenants, and Mr Rees paid no rent, Mr Rens—Read’s trustees obtained a mortgage on the premises from Robert Cooper, and lie (Rees) took possession of the premises as their tenant. Got the key from Mr Adair after being in possession for three days. Mr Adair had made a claim for rent for 21 years. Was in possession of downstairs promises until last November. The rooms upstairs were occasionally used by his clerks, but he (witness) never received any rent for them. Did not believe the premises were worth more t han £l5O a year. By Mr Edwards—Did not remember the frontdoor being dosed. Did not know that his cle ks hud possesion of the rooms. Allowed tno N.Z.N.L.S, Company to have the use of the rooms,

W. Adair—Claimed £5O from Mr Rees for possession, and rent at L2 per week for a certain period. After Mr Maude bought the promises he recognised him (Maude) as his landlord. Ho paid Mr Maude one quarter’s rent, and then Mr Rees said he was a fool for so doing. After Mr DeLautour and Mr Edwards had addressed the Court his Honor gave judgment for £7BO, costs to bo taxed according to scale.

The Court adjourned until to-day.