MANAIA NEWS.

Taranaki Daily News, 23 November 1926, Page 4

MANAIA NEWS.

MAG ISTRATE’S COURT. (From Our Own gJo rrc gpaoleiit.) Manaia, Last Night. Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M., gave judgment by default at the Manaia Court on Monday for plaintiffs in the following undefended cases: Commissioner of Taxes v. William John Atkinson, £2 4s lOd : (costs 15s); Manaia Town Board v. Mrs. Whare Rex (separate estate), £3 12s . Id (costs 8s); A. H. Christie V. Rangi Katene, £1 12s (id (costs 10s). W. Gatton, who failed to appear, was ■ proceeded against by Walter Lowry on | a judgment summons and was ordered I to pay £2 7s lid forthwith, in default .■ two days’ imprisonment. DANGEROUS DRIVING. Maurice Graham, a resident of Hamilton, through his employer, Mr. Piper, of Hawera, pleaded guilty to dangerous driving around the corner of the Manaia and Main South Roads. Constable Scannell said that the de- , fendant had gone round the corner on two wheels at between 25 and 30 miles per hour. Mr. Piper, for defendant, said that he was a careful and good driver, but had been in a hurry that day to repair a milking machine. Defendant was fined £1 and 7s costs. WITHOUT LIGHTS. Arthur Elkington, farmer, of Kaupokonui, pleaded guilty to riding a motorcycle without a light. Defendant said that his light was burning when he entered the town, but had evidently blown out. It was a rough night and the lights from the shops malße it impossible fox - him to see that his light was out. A native witness testified to the fact that defendant’s light was very dull. Defendant was fined 10s, with costs 12s. "AN ECHO OF THE SLUMP.” A. G. Bennett sued H. B. Bayliss for £57 8s 4d. Plaintiff produced a promissory note with defendant’s signature, which had not been paid, for £43 6s 7d, and claimed the balance as interest at 8 per cent/ He had written to defendant for payment on three oceaeions, but no replies had been received. To defendant Bayliss Mr. Bennett said that the case was the “echo of the slump.” Plaintiff explained that Bayliss had given a mortgage to a man named Walter Candy for £2960 at 5} per cent.,, the half-yearly interest payments being £Bl Bs. That mortgage was sub-xnoi-t--gaged for £l2ll to William Candy at 9 per cent., reducible to -8 per cent. On January 1, 1922, six months’ interest was due on the first mortgage. On February 25, 1922, Bayliss paid £4O 14s in reduction of £Bl 8s and gave the promissory note in question, payable to plaintiff, for the balance. At that period William Candy was indebted to plaintiff for £7l 19s 8d for costs and was also indebted for other sums; therefore other sums owing by Bayliss to William Candy were made payable to Bennett to cover Candy’s indebtedness, as was the ■ promissory note. Then the Manaia Loan Company took a sub-mortgage of Hie other sub-mortgage. To enable Bayliss to get rid of his liabilities the original mortgage was discharged, the first mortgage—Walter to William Candy and William Candy to the Manaia Loan Co. —were discharged. This left the land clear. Plaintiff said he did not think that Bayliss or anyone else paid any interest on any of these after that. The mortgages were, however, discharged without any arrangements for the promissory note being paid. Defendant said that lie had made arrangements to pay the promissory note on payment of the bonus in July. That was the year that Kaupokonui had the bad slump and had bad cheese and did not pay out any bonus —in fact, the suppliers nearly had to pay their money back. To Bayliss, Mr. Bennett said that the mortgage had been thrown in since. A number of other questions involving various other deals were discussed, until the Bench inteiwened, saying that it was not right that other questions should be brought up of which neither: court nor plaintiff had any notice. Defendant said that bis defence was that the mortgage was valueless. To the Bench defendant said that he had anticipated a bonus, but had not assigned his bonus to Mr. Bennett. The Bench: The fact that there was no bonus does not invalidate the promissory note. The Benell said that there was no defence as far as he could see, and that it would possibly be better if the parties consulted together. In the meantime the ease would be adjourned until December 13. Mr. Bennett, however, asked for judgment, which was entered with costs £3 15s, the Bench suggesting that defendant had better make arrangements for payment with the plaintiff.