MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 58, 29 July 1914, Page 6

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

XHW PLYMOUTH SITTING. Mr A. Crooko, S.M., presided over a sii'iiig uf tiic Magistral "s Court at Xew Plymouth yesterday. imoTiiEus ix dispute. William 'lumber Cooper (Mr Weston) sued his brother John Henry Wakclield Cooper I Mr. Johnstone) for £:!3 12s (id. paid by him in settlement of partnership debts from which lie claimed his brother had indemnified him in an agreement dissolving the partnership between them, Plaintiff deposed that he came to .New Plymouth in October. I'M 2 and .enteivd into partnership with hi- two brothers. of whom one was Lin- defendant, as painters and papcrha liters. In January, one of his brothers withdrew by agreement, leaving plaintiff and defendant in the tit-iii. On February IS, defendant bought him out and an agreement was entered into whereby defendant was to indemnify him against all claims against tin- partnership. Some nine months later he was sued by Mr llaydcn and judgment went, by default against hi.n and his two brothers. Execution was issued, and as a n nit some paint belonging to him was (a hen to the aucti.m ' nia'rt and despite his protest, was sold- '• It had cost him about O!0. The part- [ ncrsliip had also contracted a debt with jthc estate of the late Mr H. J. Gilbert, land plaintiff paid £2 12s on account of that.

To Mr Weston: When he bought the paint from his brother, 1). R. Coop"'.'. he knew that the di lit to Hayden was not paid. He was more friendly with D. R. Cooper than with defendant. Uo was cross-examined at some length by Mr Weston. John Terry, Clerk of Court of Xew Plymouth, produced the records in the case of llavilcn against Cooper Pros. There was a judgment for £37 10s -3d against them, and subsequently goods were sold under distress warrant for £l9 10s. This dosed the case for the plaintiff. Mr Weston intimated that he proposed to prove that alter defendant bouglt out plaintiff, he continued in business until the following July, when Daniel Cooper came back and became responsible for the rent. The execution was directed by design against what appeared to be the property of D. R. Cooper because the defendant looked on him as responsible for the rent. The money paid to Gilbert's estate was paid by the defendant for his brother Daniel under power uf the attorney or not on behalf of the firm.

'Per. ;•■ Roberts, a painter and paperhanger, deposed tliat at the sale the goods brought more than their actual value. Tiie paint had deteriorated through e>:po:.u;v. Cross-examined by Mr Johnstone, he Admitted thai Mime of the articles soli at fair prices and one at under value. Thos. I*. Li, tor, of Omata, storekeeper, deposed to having at the end of I!)i:j received paint from I). 1!. Cooper ;or sale on (oiimiivion. These were tic .goods subsc<|iiontly seized. Kdward (.'luckman. of Xew Phino;:.'i. gave similar evidence. ■William S. flilbert. of Xew Pi v. vi-ith. deposed that be was a trustee in the estate of 11. .1. Cilberl (•■•.• ,-.i..,. . , • that I), li. Cooper had said tier,, ;.hie! :\ who behl iu'K power of attornev. would pay his share of the amount due In- fv firm to -lilberfs estate. 5ub,,., r ,;.-,-, Iplaintiir paid tiie 11 12., fid. WitiY-v! | did not know plaintill' except <>■■■ !). ;;. I Cooper's attornev. Si|llirr K. I'ickcr.-gil!, of New J'i, - | Drouth, canvasser, deposed that in .In c. >]:>. he assisted at a stock-taking bv ,i) Jt. Cooper, ami the ,|, f-ndant. IJ. K Cooper then agreed to take over the stock and pay (he iv„f. Defendant !>:,>•- rowed money and l:;'.::<i'.d it t<> D. I!. Cooper to pay llayd-n's rent. This \v;'-= when the bailifV was ;„ tile ,| : op. Win. Xichoils. of Xew Plymouth assistant hiilill. depo-c! to the execution of the distress w:irranl. lie understood that the goods seized be!oii""d to 1). U. Coo])cr. John Henry Wakefield Cooper the defendant. do.aiscd that when'he sold out to 1). 11. Coooerin Julv. I'l]:;. j t was agre"d that the latter s'hciul pay all the rent to the end of the leaV llconsidered that the goods ,rizc,l i'va!lv belonged to him, as I). It. Cooper ban not paid for them. I). U. Cooper owed Mm nearly £7O. To iir'.loluisfone: This wAs for the goods so.iz.ed and for inouev lent. When he toot; file iuilill' to seize' the goods he tllldersiood that thev were' 1). It. Coopor's good, and thai be was liable to pay (lie rent. He ,ii,| not. bowevcr. think they were I). 1!. Cooper's gt.m'.s until the latter had paid him for them, and although t'hev were seized lie now considered that 1). H. Cooper owed him for them. H was unusual for him f go round helping the bailiff. , Elizabeth Cooper, wife of the defendant, aNo gave evidence. This closed the vd.se for f'ne defence. Mr. Westoil, in a brief address, contended that the agreement signed hv defendant did wot consider the lease to lie part of the partnership assets, and -o it provided no indemnitv for p : ainti!T I against claim-, for rent. Defendant

bought the 'ease, but not as a partner on these ground*, lie si Iso continue'! that the dclYnifant .lid u.it pa-- t!:e amount of the i NcuPim. lint thai. D. li. Conp-r, thi' real owner uf the [roods, did so. Mr. .lohnslone contended at some length each point raised by Mr. Weston, and relied on the covenant which he said defendant had made and broken. His Worship reserved lii-j decision. JUDGMENT SUMMONS CASES. Judgment summons cases were dealt with as follows: The New Plymouth Gt ncral Lahore's' Union (Mr Weston) v. Henry P.r.sby. Defendant said that he was a married i man with two children, one at work and one at school. His average weekly earnings were "its to 3.35. He paid (is per week rent since the judgment, three mouths ago. hut during that time had lost work through wet weather. The claim was for CI 10s. The case was adjourned to enable him to produce a record of his earnings -n that period.

In the case of the New Plymouth Borough Council (Mr P. 11. 'Qnillbi.ni) v. Walter Smith, of Xew Plymouth, fisherman, a claim of £5 (is fid, defendant said that he had three young children, lie sometimes worked on the wharf. For three months lie made nothing out of fishing. On the whan" he had made in the last two months about £1 8s per week. This case was similarly adjourned. RESERVED BECTSIOX. In the rase of John Hoskin v. L. Keith, in which decision was reserved on Hat court'day. judgment was given for plaintiff for £1 l'2s, this being a reduction in the amount in dispute from £2 fis. Costs amounting to £1 Ss were included. Mr (' 11. Weston appeared for plaintiff, and Mr A. 11. Johnstone for the defendant. BY DEFAULT. The following cases went by default: The Guardian Trust and Executors' Company, Ltd.. v. A. Cumberland .McDonnell, CD 2s .3d (costs £1 Pis fidl; The New Zealand Flour and Produce Co., Ltd. v. Xicholls and Son, £32 17s did (£3).