B. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 35, 9 January 1884, Page 3

B. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

(Mor* J. Booth, Eeq., R.M.) TUESDAY. C.». irui v. >. Btiaa. Mt, Nolan appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Brassey for the defendant. Thia was an adjourned claim for £ll2 10a., the particulars of which were set forth aa fol. lowaMr. P. Barrie, aa creditors’ trustee in the bankruptcy of S. Boe, on the 28rd of July, 1888, assigned to the plaintiff by deed dated the 23rd of July, aforesaid, mtsr alia, tor the sum of £ll2 10s.. » all and singular the engine and saw-mill plant of the saw-mill on the Karaka Block, and one house now standing on the Pakepapa Block, together with all the right, eeute, and interest of the said Peter Barrie, as such trustee.” All conditions were fulfilled necessary to entitle the plaintiff to the possession of the said premile*; yet the defendant has not given possession of the said premises to the plaintiff, wherefore the plaintiff claim, the recovery of I the said sum, together with interest on the same to date of present hearing. The plaintiff now abandoned any excess over and above the sum of £lOO, so as to bring it within the Court’s jurisdiction. The defendant to the suit has left Napier, and is now in Waipawa. t Mr. Brassey said he had received instructions from Napier to withdraw the defence. The Court then gave judgment for the •mount and costs, £8 9s. o. HALL v. r. nswsoK, This was a daim for £4 Os. 6d-, for work done. r Mr. E. Hall, examined by the defendant— The first item in the account was for £8 for a horse and a saddle. His attention had been called to the fact that the saddle was broken, and he had then agreed to deduct 10s. from the price on that account, providing the remaining £7 10s. was paid at once. Had received a cheque for 30s. in December last. The 30s. was off the horse. Had received £6 10s. before. Mr. Hall complained that every one had to bring the defendant into Court before they could get their money. The defendant said plaintiff owed him more money than the amount sued for. His Worship said, if such was the case, the defendant should have pleaded a set-off. The plaintiff said he owed the defendant 10s. After considerable altercation between the parties, his Honor gave judgment for the amount, less 125., and costs. PARNELL AND BOYLAN V. MATTHEWS AND EGAN. On the application of the plaintiffs the hearing of this case was adjourned until Friday next. GREENWOOD V. MULLOLY. Mr. W. L. Bess for the plaintiff, and Mr. H. J. Finn for the defendant. Claim, £4l 2s. 10d.

The oirepmstancei which led up to this action took place some two years ago, when the defendant sued one Apiata te Hame. The result was that after various actions, too lengthy to enter into here, the defendant Michael Mullooly, was cast in damages to the amount of £.? 1 13s. iOd. which he paid into the hands of the plaintiff in his capacity as Clerk of the Court. On the cheque being paid on October 31, 1883, and a receipt being given, Mr. Mullooly called in the bailiff, and seized the cheque on account of a judgment summons which had been taken out at the instance of Mr. Mullooly against Apiata te Hame. The present action was for the recovery of the said cheque, together with £5 damages. Mr. Finn objected to the case being dealt with, as an appeal was pending -against the previous decision : and supported his application by a lengthy argument, fortified by numerous authorities;

Mr. Bees followed on the other hand, and strongly opposed any delay, and characterised the case as an aggravated one, and imputed fraud to the defendant. It was fraud inasmuch as it was a wrongful act. His Honor said after hearing the arguments on both side, he did not see why he should stay the ordinary proceedings of the Court. The case must go on, Mr. Rees then called Michael Mullooly. Mr. Finn, “ I withdraw from the case.” Mr. Mullooly now appealed to' the Court to be protected from the remarks of Mr. Rees, who had accused him of fraud. His Worship said he did not think Mr. Rees meant fraud within the common acceptation of the word. Mr. Rees said he only meant fraud inasmuch as it was a wrongful act. The defendant was acting under advice. In answer to the Court, Mr. Mullooly said he had ample means of satisfying this demand, but objected to doing so on the ground that he had no right to pay the amount. On his Worship saying he should make an order for payment in two months, Mr, Rees strongly objected to any time being given, and said his Worship had no right to adopt such a course, and show sympathy with the defendant. It was not a case for sympathy, but quite the reverse. His Worship was not toting in a manner calculated to deter other offenders, Hii Worship e«ld he had * certain amount oi sympathy with the defendant, who, he believed, had acted under a misapprehension. Mr. Finn said Mr, Mullooly had not acted under a misapprehension, ana he (Mr. Finn) would take care that all the circumstances were brought to light, Judgment for the amount, £45 2s. 10d., forthwith, and costs, £2 25., in default one month,