R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 122, 3 May 1884, Page 3

R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

(Before J. Booth, Esq,, R.M.) FRIDAY. BENTLY V. SO MEH VILLE. Claim £33 15s. 6d., money lent. Mr. Nolan for the plaintiff, and Mr. Kenny (for Mr. Rees) for the defendant. The evidence of the defendant, who is at present in Auckland, was read. Mr. Nolan asked for a judgment on the defendant’s evidence, as he had said in that evidence, that after making arrangements with his creditors he promised to pay the plaintiff the money he had lent him (defendant). Mr. Kenny said that that promise was merely a voluntary one given by the defendant, for which he had received no consideration, thus it could not be legally obtained. J. East was then called, who deposed—The stamp was affixed to the agreement on the date which it (the agreement) bears, —at least I think so. We (the trustees) signed it on the same day that the stamp was put on, and the stamp was affixed before all the signatures were to the agreement. About two years after he called a meeting of his creditors, and made an arrangement with them. After that he promised to pay me the money. He did so in writing. Before I signed the agreement in evidence, the defendant promised to pay me the £5O without interest. The plaintiff was then called and deposed —I know the defendant, and have advanced him money to the extent of £5O, for which he was to give me £57 in return. I have never received a penny of it. His Worship said, in equity the plaintiff was entitled to his money. As another case had been tried against the same defendant, in this Court, and on the same agreement, he would like to peruse the evidence in that case before giving a decision in this one. Decision was therefore reserved until the next Court day. The cases of Flood v. Fryer, and Stevens v. Locke were adjourned until Tuesday next. In the case of C. A. Brown v. Forrester and others, being a claim of £39 9s. 6d., for rent. * the plaintiff was nonsuited.