RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT TEMUKA

Temuka Leader, Issue 278, 5 August 1880, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT TEMUKA

Wednesday, Aug. 4th

Before F. Guinness, Esq., R.M

The Police v, Fife. This was a case for the sustenance lor his child, which had to be kept in the Industrial School through her parent’s neglect. Ordered to pay 5s a week. Gregory v. Morris. Judgment summons. Mr Morris sent in a medical certificate of being unfit to attend. Adjourned fur a month. Oleary v. Manger. Adjourned for a week.

Hooper v. Jones. —Claim, L 5 10s, for clothes supplGd, Judgment for amount claimed and costs.

A. Wilson and Sons v. A. Wordsworth. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount and costs, L2. G. J. Mason v. H. Holloway—Claim L 3 10s. Rehearing from last Court day. Mr Austin appeared for.plaintiff The evidence of plaintiff was as follows ; —I am a saddler, residing at Temuka. I remember the 10th April last. On that day defendant came with John Currie and a man named Moulton, and purchased a saddle and bridle, for-which lie tendered a cheque drawn by a H. Hastings. On ray demurring to tho cheque, he stated that he would make it good if returned. I paid the cheque in the usual manner, and afterwards received notioe that the cheque, was dishonored , I took prompt steps to inform defendant of this, and demanded payment. I-posted it at the Temuka Post Office; I saw Mr Holloway after tuat on several occasions. He promised to pay me the amount of th cheque. I received the letter produced from defendant’s daughter. Currie rnd Moulton were present when I took the cheque. By defendant : I offered you the cheque several times in lieu of the money. You promised to pay me on more than one occasion. J. Currie, sworn, deposed: I remember being in plaintiff’s shop on the 10th April last. Holloway bought a saddle from plaintiff, and tendered him cheque produced, stating that if bad he would refund the money. H. Maltou deposed : On the l®th April last I was in plaintiff’s shop when the defendant purchased a saddle and bridle for which he tendered the cheque produced. Mr Mason did not like the cheque, upon which defendant guaranteed it good if returned dishonored. R. McKay deposed : I am a teller in our Bank in Timaru, and marked N.P.F. on cheque, which is equivalent to dishonor. R, Guy deposed : I am a saddler, residing in Temuka. I was not present when the defendant purchased the saddle. I did not see the cheque tendered for payment, but Mr Mason left it in my charge, as he was going away. I afterwards saw Miss Holloway, who asked me to let her look at the cheque, il did so. She did not offer to pay the money. This was the case for the plaintiff. Defendant being sworn, said : A few days previous to visiting Mason’s shop, I sold two horses at Pleasant Point, for which I received the cheque produced on the 10th April. I went to plaintiff’s shop and purchased a saddle and bridle, for which I tendered him the cheque produced. I. have always been willing to refund the amount, and will, after the sitting of the Court, give plaintiff cash to the. value of the cheque; but still think the same a good one. By Mr Austin : I should be surprised to health at the cheque has again been presented and marked N.F.S. My daughter signs all my cheques, and writes all my correspondence ; she hss no general authority to do so. A. Holloway, sworn, deposed : X have no general authority to sign cheques for my father. I only do so by instructions. The letter produced is in my handwriting. I wrote it without ray lather’s authority. I don’t know what become of the letter. My lather was not at home. This was the case for the defendant. Mr Holloway declined to address the Court. Mr. Austin addressed the Court at considerable length, reiterating his former opinion that the p laintiff" was entitled to a verdict. The defendant several times interrupted the learned counsel, and stated, amidst the laughter of the Court, that Mr Austin was a good man when there was no one to oppose him. His Worship, in giving judgment for plaintiff, said this was a totally different case

from the one previously heard by him, and he considered, and all' theArgmc. merits quoted by the learned coun-01, thoj plaintiffs evidence went to show that, he ‘ had promised that if the cheque was b'iujfy he would makj it good, and this.the de\ le.ndant did not deny ; therefore he hadno other alternative than give judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed, and* costs, in all, L 6 18s 6d