R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 112, 22 April 1884, Page 2

R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

(Before J. Booth, Esq,, R.M,) THIS DAY. M. lIALD V. WX HAUBANGA, Claim—£2 10s for harness. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount claimed, with costs, £1 4s. b. c. fryer v. g. h. marshall. Claim—£3 10s for dishonored promissory note. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for the amount, with costs 7s. HEMI TE AWAHUKA V. BARKER & M'DONALD. Mr Kenny for the defendant Barker, asked that this case might be adjourned till the 29th inst. after the decision had been given in the case of M*Donald v. Barker. Mr DeLautour, for the plaintiff, agieed to this, and the case was adjourned according to application, BRASSEY & FRASER V. SEIVEWRIGHT, STOUT, & CO. Claim—£29 5s lid for the detention of deeds. Mr Kenny for plaintiff, and Mr DeLautour for defendants, Mr DeLautour said an objection was mentioned to the magistrate at Dunedin that this case could not be heard here as the cause of action had arisen in the Dunedin district. The action was for detenue, an action for detention of deeds, and not of contract. He claimed that his Worship had no jurisdiction, as the action had not arisen in this district. Mr Kenny replied that they contended that the action was rightly brought, as a material part of it arose in this district. He now explained the facts of the case, stating that the plaintiff had done business up here for the defendants, and had received certificates of title from them. He had a lien on these certificates of title through his bill of costs. He also contended that this was an action of contract. It was a breach of an implied contract.

Mr. DeLautour admitted that they could bring the action here on the contract, but they had claimed for damages on the detention of the certificates. His Worship thought a material part of the action had arisen in this district and could be heard here. W. Brassey deposed—Some years ago I did some work here for a Mr. D. Brown, and costs were incurred to the amount of this claim. Some correspondence passed between our firm and the defendants. In February I received the telegram produced, re the deeds in question. In March, 1883, I received the letter produced, asking the certificates of title and bill of costs to be forwarded to them for their inspection to them. We did so, and they acknowledged their receipt. They have not returned the deeds. I wrote and asked them to send the deeds back, and I would settle with Mr. Brown. I drew on them for the money, but they refused to pay. To Mr. DeLautour—l received instructions from Mr. Brown’s son to act in the matter, about two years ago. My instructions were to prepare a deed of transfer of property which Mr. Brown, sent., had bought. The deeds were got out of me by a trick. I don’t want the money I want the deeds. Considerable argument between the Counsel's on each side now took place, Mr. DeLatour contending that there was no lien on the deeds, as the plaintiffs had abandoned them, had given them up. Mr. Kenny argued the other way that there was a lien on the deeds, as they had not been abandoned. The defendants had telegraphed to the plaintiffs for the deeds, for their examination and perusal, which the plaintiffs had done, expecting them to be returned. Therefore there was a lien. His Worship thought, from what he could make out of the case, the plaintiff’s were entitled to the deeds. Mr. DeLautour said the plaintiffs action should be against Mr. Brown. Examination continued— l object to say what the work was. It was a transfer to Mr. Brown from Messrs. Irvine & Co., of a certain section. I completed the transfers, and I paid the expenses. I did not register the deeds in Mr. Brown’s name. Mr. Kenny objected to the question put by Mr. DeLautour whether the title was completed or not, as it had nothing to do with the case. Mr. DeLautour said there should be no hesitation in answering questions which would bring out the facts. Examination continued— l have not been informed by Mr. Brown that he had transferred his business before I received the telegram. Mr. Jas. Brown has not told me frequently that the defendants were acting for his father in the matter. [Several other questions were here put to witness, who flatly declined to answer them. His Worship upholding the objection.] This was the plaintiff’s case. Mr. DeLautour asked that the evidence of Mr. Brown and Geo. Munday that had been taken in Dunedin, be read. Mr. Kenny objected to this, as it was not necessary. His Wo: ship allowe I the evidence to be read. Whereupon Mr. Kenny again objected to a certain portion of Mr. Mundy’s evidence, ns it was only hearsay. The witness said he was told so and so. That was not evidence, and was irrelevant to the case. Mr. DeLautour endeavoured to show that it was relevent. Mr. Kenny next objected to the whole of Mr. Brown’s evidence, and also to the exhibits put in as evidence. The exhibits were next read. Mr. Kenny said he would not object to the evidence if it was only used to show Mr. Brassey’s knowledge of Sievwright and Stout’s retainer. His Worship remarked that was all he required it for. James Brown—l remember calling at the plaintiffs’ office shortly after my father purchased the property. My father inquired how it was that the deed was not forthcoming. My father expressed dissatisfaction, and said he would give the matter into defendant’s hands. Shortly afterwards we left, on the understanding that my father would transfer the work into the defendant’s hands. The next day I met the plaintiff, and we had a conversation. Ile asked me if my father was still going to take the work away, and I said he was. He told me that if I could get the work back again he would guarantee to get the title completed. I told my father that it would be bettor to leave it in the plaintiff’s hands. Therefore my father agreed to leave the matter still with the plaintiff. This was about the beginning of December 1881. 1 saw the plaintiff repeatedly after this, the title was never completed, and I let the thing hang on for about two years. Then I wrote to my father advising him to put the matter into the defendant’s hands as I could not get satisfaction from the plaintiff. I think I told the plaintiff that 1 had done that, .ami tha l the matter was in their hands. This was the case, and judgement was reserved until Friday the 25th instant. Left Sitting.