B. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 216, 22 August 1884, Page 3

B. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

THIS DAY. (Before J. Booth, Esq., K.M.) W. Cooper v. S.P.P. Co. Judgment in this case was given for the plaintiff for £23 13b.; costs, £slBs. C. 0. Fischer v. Durston. Claim £4. Judgment by default with costs 12s. , , Teat and Friar v. D. Lynch. Claim £lllos. on a judgment summons. Defendant said he had been paid £3O for a -•contract a' Repo ga're. After paying the tx penses he had only 14s. left. He was willing to pay if he got employment. The Bench said an order could not be made under the cirumstance, but would advise defendant to make an offer to plaintiffs, he could not send a man to prison when he had no money to pay. It would be a different thing if the man had the money and did not pay. Mr. Friar said he brought the case because he was informed that defendant had a good contract. . . On the application of plaintiff the case was adjourned for a month. W, Tharatt v. P. Malone. Application for order on judgment summons. Claim £3 17s. 6d. Mr. Brassey for defendant applied for an adjournment of one month. The defendant was at present in Napier. Mr. Tharatt said what he objected to was coming down so often and losing his time. Adjourned to September 19th. L. G. Direy v. D. Hepburn. Claim £5 18s. Mr. Brassey for plaintiff, and Mr. Finn for defendant. The plaintiff deposed that the charges made were for his services in seizing horses at Ormond, in the suit of Hepburn v. Eidgood. The charges made were the usual ones, and were reasonable. Mr. Finn examined the plaintiff at length as to the charges made, and especially with reference to an item of 30s. paid to Currie and Hogan. Mr. Brassey said it was unfair to dispute the account after the man had been engaged by Mr. Finn to do the work. He would call Mr. Kenny to prove that the charges made were the usual ones. Mr. Kenny deposed that £1 for execution and 10s. fo/inventory was the usual charge. He would demur to the charge of 6s. a day for the hotel expenses, as the 10s. a day for services should include this. Mr. Greenwood, Registrar, deposed that the usual fee for execution of bill of sale was £l, for drawing inventory 10s. He allowed his bailiffs Bs. a day and ss. a day allowance in lieu of board and lodging. He also allowed horse hire at the rate of 7s. 6d. per day. Mr. Diery was not a duly appointed Sherriff’s officer, but was employed by him. Mr. Finn said he resisted the claim in order that it might be settled once for all whether [ these fees were to be charged here for expenses under process issued by the Supreme Court. Mr. Brassey felt that the Court would be satisfied that nothing but the usual fees had been charged. The Court was of opinion after hearing all he evidence—Mr. Greenwood s in particular, hat it could not be said that the charges were unreasonable. As this was a private arrangement, and it had been proved that the account was a reasonable one, he did not think that the Court was called upon to reduce the amount. Judgment would be given for the full amount of the claim with costs. In future it would be better that solicitors should make their own agreements in similar cases. Mr. Finn strongly objected to the expense of £ll Is. being allowed to Mr. Kenny. He had only proved what the practice was fifteen years ago. There was a difference in opinions between Mr. Kenny and Mr. Greenwood as to the proper charges. He could quote a precedent in this Court where under similar circumstances a witness was not allowed expenses, as his evidence was not material. He noticed, however, that precedents were quoted and upheld in the case of favored solicitors. The Bench hoped that these remarks were not thrown out as insinuations, as such language would not be permitted in that Court.