Resident Magistrate's Court. TE AROHA. TUESDAY, AUGUST 20th, 1889. (Before H. W. Northcroft, Esq., R.M)

Te Aroha News, Volume VIII, Issue 395, 21 August 1889, Page 2

Resident Magistrate's Court. TE AROHA. TUESDAY, AUGUST 20th, 1889. (Before H. W. Northcroft, Esq., R.M)

Brian v. Cuonin. In this case John Brian brought an aciion against Michael Cronin (boih of Waiorongomai), for the return of a colonial oven, and recovery of £1 (latnasjpß for detention of same. Sir Wm. Wasteneys, solicitor for plaintiff, Mr McVeagh, solicitor for defendant. In openinsr tho case plaintiff's solicitor stated that the ovon had been returned, sui-sequfnt". to the summons being; issued, hy being 1 left at Mr E. Gallagher's liouso, lately occupied by defendant and fiom whence defendant hail taken it, but his client had vql had it returned <o t'nuo. -hud been pfit to a considerable iimount of trouble and inconveniencp, and for this they clajfrned LI dampges

and costs. I The only evidence adduced was that of plaintiff and defendant, P ant iff statement was to the effect that he lent the oven to lefendant, whilst, he (dependant), was living in Mr E. Gallagher's house, and thnt defendant took it there. When defendant left the house witness told Mr Gallagher he could keep the oven, hut he subsequently found out that the oven had been removed from the honse. Went to defendant about it, and also t>ave him a solicitor's letter on Monday, 12th inst., demanding the return of the oven within 48 hours. It had not been returned within that timp, or at all to him, but he wns told on Friday last the oven was outride the door of Mr Gallagher's house. Cronin's statement wis that early last year, ft short time before he got married, Brim bought a house at Waioronsromu, and asked him to look after it whilst he was away for a time. This witness said he would do, whereupon diao said he would give him the oven that was in the honse aa a wedding pres-'nt ; and he never heard anything moie from Brian about the oven until the other day, although he had been in the habit of. coming to his (witness') house on an average at least once a day. He had never asked him for the return of the oven, but handed him the solicitor's letter, demanding its return within 48 hours without any remark. Witness thought it a very strange proceed ing to be requested to now return what had been given as a wedding present, but determined, rather than have any fu^s about it, to give it up, and expected Bran would call on him about it when the 48 hours were up, as ho had not stated in the letter of demand where the oven was to be sent to. Net hearing further from him he took it back to Mr Gallagher's hou-e early Friday morning, before he knew anything of a summons being issued, as the summons was not served until Friday evening. His Worship non-suited plaintiff, and to pay costs, 13s 6d ; stating he failed to ■see defendant had done anything wrong. The oven it is true had not been returned within 48 hours, but it had been within a reasonable time after its return had been demanded. His Worship added : There was no doubt in bis mind the whole reason of the action being brought at all was on account of bad blood between the parties, a3 a result of the •iction, Cronin v. Brian, on Inst Court day. Tt w«s folly for them to keep that sort of Feeling up. It was stated the oven had been piven Cronin as a wedding present, and nothing more seems to have been heard about it until after the recent action, and then it was to be a present no lon 9r or .