RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1589, 2 June 1887, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Gbbaldikk—Tuesday, Mat 31, 1887.

[Before H. 0. S. Baddeley, Esq., R.M., the Rev. G. Barclay, and H. W. Moore and A. H. Brisco, Esqs*, J.P.s.] STKAY CATTLE. Thomai Lord, Joseph Hardy, and John Flemming were each fined7s 6d and costs for allowii g horses to wander at large on the Main road.

John Bonghtou was fined ?n 6<l and costs for allowing one cow to wander at large. R. H. Pratt was charged with the same offence, but pleadsd that the cow r/as coming down to the heme to be milked, and his son whom he had s»nt for it was n.)t close up to it at the time.—He was dismissed with a caution. TRESPASS. James Wbituknr waa charged on the information of Wtn. Postlethwaito with trespassing on his land with dog and gun in pursuit of game. Defoudant stated that ho was enly trespassing with a gun and not with a I dog.

W. Postlethwaite, sworn, said that on the 18th of May as he rode through one of'hit? paddocks he saw defendant stalking something. He went to see what ho was stalking, and found he was stalking Pukaki. Had asked him who was with him, and he hud replied Bill Coombs, and that ha was in the creek with the dog his telling hiji to call for Coombs, the latter did not answer, and after looking for him some time he (witness) asked defendant how he cam* to be there, as he had been in his employ, and knew witness did not like boys coming there shooting. Defendant said he had a right to go there, aR he was shooting rabbits, and. witness had then decided to teat the matter in the Police Court. He had brought the case in order to ahow the boys of Geraldine that they could not come shooting as they liked. He lost a great many sh*ep every year through people bringing their dogs and driving the sheep into the creeks. His Worship said this wss only a part of the larrikinisra that prevailed in New Zealand. He had no doubt defendant had answered as Mr Postlethwaite had said. Boys did wrong and then made matters worse by their impertinence. A fine of If) > and costs would be inflicted. CITIL CASES. d. Helem v. C. A. Lloyd—Claim £2 17s 6i, for the paddockiug of a horse. Mr White appeared for plaintiff, who was not present. Defendant, sworn, said that he had a horse running in the bush, and plaintiff gave him notice in 1885 to take it away. Defendant had then gone to Mr Angus Macdonald and aeked leave to run his horse on a 10-acra section which wf« un-f'-nced, pi uiu tiff's section being also unfenced. This leave had bsen granted. Plaintiff had since applied to dofaudant for money for graa ; ng, but he had taken no notice of such application. On the application of Mr White the case was adjourned till next Court day to allow of plaintiff being present. Dr Foster v. Jane Tindall -CUim £8 lis 7d, professional fees. Mr Hay for plaintiff, Mr White for defendants. Mr Hay, in opening the case said the facts were as follows : Sometime ago Mrs Tindall had retained plaintiff to obtain the letters of administration of her late husband and 'he transmission of his property to herself. The work was to be done for the sum of £l9 19s. The certificates of title had to be furnished to plaintiff or placed where he could have access to them. At that time there was a piece of property bought by onePawsoa wbich was not included in the arrangement. A subsequent arrangement was made dealing with that property. Defendant was to pay £4 4s for the transmission of that particular pieoe. The title had to be brought to plaintiff but it could never be found. Mr Mundell, who was present when the arrangement was made, undertook to get tbo title, but

it could never be found. The only means therefore by which defendant could get the title was by obtaining a provisional

certificate, and it was for getting that certificate, and for paying the land transfer fees, the present action was brought. The question was whether these items were included in the arrangement or not. He oalled— Dr C. J. Foster, who, on being sworn, said he wag a solicitor of th« Supreme Court ot Nevr Zealand, practicing in Geraldine, He had acted for defendant in sevfiral matters. The bill of costs put in had been served upoo defendant by <i signed bill on the 24th Feb. The work stated tbereio had been done, aud the charges were fair. On October 6th, defendant and Mr Mundell had called at his office with reference to obtaining the letters of administration of the effects of defendant's deceased husband, also for the obtaining transmission to her from ! him. He then read over the tgreement. (produced) a copy of which he hud given to defendant. The only properties then mentioned were the hote', and a farm that the late Mr Tindall had purchased from the life Mr Stud holme. It turned out that the purchase had nqt been completed from Studholme, and he (plaintiff) obtained a transfer direct to defendant. The hotel property, he passed through the Lond Transfer Act and obtained a transmission to defendant. The certificate of

title for the hotel property waa produced to him. It was produced by Mr LouissoD who held a mortgaga over the hotel property. A convention took place between witness and defendant with regard to this certificate, when he told her it was usual to charge a guinea for producing it. Defendant said she was quite sure that Mr Louisson would not put her to that expense. He had always been a good friend to her and the guinea would not have to be paid. Plaintiff said upon herasßurince of that he would do the work for the £l9 10s. His agent subsequently wrote to him from Christ, church that ho had had to pay the guinea as Louiston h*d charged it. Upon that, plaintiff wrote wrote to defendant and told her of it. (Letter put in). With regard to Pawson's purchase, the first I lie heard of (hat was some time afteiw*rdi, when Mr Mundell was trying t» sell the property. Had hsard nothing of it until the transmission of the hot»l property was quite completed. • It was no part of what was undertaken by plaintiff to bo dono for the £l9 10a, It was agreed that defendant waa to pay four guineas for obtaining the transmission of Pawson's I purchase and tba transmission from]

StudholmeexclnsiveofatampH and registration. Mr Mundell was there when the ■ arrangement was made. He undertook to obtain the certificate of title. This certificate was at Mr Hamersley's. Plaintiff went to Mr Mundell for it, when he handed him a letter (produced and rend) in which Mr Hamersley said he had searched everywhere for it and could not find it, Plaintiff then made a good .1.-n 1 nf search for it, went to MrHameraley and to the bankers of the late Mr Tindall but it was not forthcoming. He then had +o get. out a new transfer,, the items for which were those charged for except the guinea ' paid to Louisson. They were incurred in getting thia fresh certificate for P»w»on'a lot. i When Mr Mundell undertook to get the certificate defendant wiisHprei sent. There was nothing said at that meeting about the certificate not being forthcoming. When plaintiff afterwards took instructions from pWintiff 'th» question of suing Mr Hamersley for the extra expenses incurred was left open. This was on the 6th July. Plaintiff told the defendant, there would be some extra, expenses but she made no demur. Plain« tiff advised her that she could sue Mr Hamersley for the extra expenses and she made no demur. She quite undarstood that was to be the airangoment. Had asked her for the amount several times and she had promised to call in, but.had passed several times and not done se. She never repudiated the account or objected to it in apy way till quite lately. To Mr White: Defendant pudiated the account till quite lately. I believe I did not know ot the guinea being owing when she settled up with me far the £l9 10s arrangement. I knew tbe guinea was charged and paid by my agent upon the Bth March, 1886, but did not think about the guinea being owing when 1 gave the receipt for the £l9 10s. I bad an interview in my office with Mto Tindall while Mr Paw ton was there. I remember the four guineas being paid. [Receipt produced.] I would not like to swear that I did not say to defendant on October 18tb, 1886, that all that she owed me was £1 lis 7d, £1 buing for conditions of ssle and Jla 7d for stamp duty, I had it in my mind that she owed me for the transmission. The conversation about Louiuon's guinea took place when I first knew there was a mor'gage. Ido not think Mr Mundell was there at tbe time. There was no oris present at the time the conversation took place about the extra expenses. It tock plnce at my office. I have done no work for defendant since October 18th, 1886. Reexamined by Mr Hay..! My reason for thinking that I did not say on 18th October that defendant only owed me £1 lis 7d was because she wanted me to give her a receipt in full up to that date, and 1 refused more than once. I said I will give you a receipt for the ararnge* ment for the four guineas. (Receipts produced so worded.) This was ths plaintiffs case/ Mr White said ths defence would be that plaintiff had agreed to do certain work for £l9 10s, and a second arrangement for four guineas, and that there was noreservation with regard to further costs. He called Jane Tindall, the defendant, who, being sworn, said that Mr Denoon and Mr Muadell were present when the arraugeur.ent was made for the £l9 10ai Everything was to be done for that sum. Nothing was said about moneys paid out of pocket by plaintiff. Mr Mundell was there when the arrangement vaa made about Pawson's lot. All was to be done for the four guineas. Plaintiff spoke abont her getting the extra fees from Mr Hamersley. When she proposed to see Mr Hamersley herself he said if she went to see Mr Hamersley she could not get him to do the work. The plaintiff would do no more for her. Plaintiff had never asked her personally for the money. She had told Mr Hiskena she would eall and see plaintiff about it. She wa3 with Mr Pawaon when she paid the four guinea', and when she asked plaintiff how much she owed he said only £L 1U 7d. Ha had said £1 was for conditions of sale, lis 7d for duty. Had then siil if he would give her her papers she would pay him in full. Plaintiff had looked ad over the office for the papers, but could not find them. To Mr Hay: Plaintiff said he would gat the certificate. I told him where it was. I did not say Lbuisson was a very good friend of mine and would not charge the guinea. Plaintiff's agreement was not to incur any more charges to me. I do not know why plaintiff should write to me four days afterwards and state in his letter that his agent writes him to ; say that he cannot get the title from Louiason without the guinea. 1 was not to bear the cost of a new certificate. I did not ask plaintiff for a receipt in full. The receipt produced is one for what I ga re him the day I was at his office. John Mundell, sworn, said he was present with defendant when the arrangement was made about obtaining trans* mission and registration for defendant. It was on April 21st, 1886. The work

I was to be done for €l9 10a, which was to \ include everything. There was no conversation about the certificate of title in Louisson's hands. The only thing said was that plaintiff was to know where they were to be found so that he could inspect them. Witness was a business man of hers and looked carefully into, the matter. Was present when the arrangement was made about Pawson's lot. Ttiat was to cost four guineas, which was to include everything. Pawion "•--■ to pay his part of the transmission Had had no conversation with pla.utiff about the agree* ment.

To Mr Hay: There was no mention of Louisson at the first agreement. I said I thoughts the deed was at Mr Hamersley'e and I would write to Mr Hameraley and try and get it. The four guineas wero to cover the plaintiff's probable cost of getting the title and transmission. At that time I had very great doubt at to whether the title would be forthcoming'.

Plaintiff had teen about the tit In before we made (he arrangement. He bad been making enquiries as to getting the deed. I think be said so himself.

To Mr White : Nothing wai said upon the firjjt arrangement as to where the certificates were. They were to be where

plaintiff could see them. Thomas Pawson sworn,' said he had been present at the interview with plaintiff, When defendant paid the four guineas, she asked how much she was then owing. Plaintiff said one: guiaea for conditions of sale and lis 7d for * stamp duties.

To Mr Hay: Sbe asked him hew much fshe was owing. The words " uuder the arrangement" were not used. This was the cas9. Counsel on both sides having addresned r the Bench at eoneidiirable length, His Worship Mid th*r whatever might have been plaintiffs intention he had not made it clear to the other sie'e. . He simply hnd not been sufficiently careful in dealing with people outside the profession. Professional men knew exiictly what mich n thins would coat, It was a verycomrron thing for people to want to know just whit it woeld cost them. It was very bard on plaintiff, but they could not caet aside the clear evidence of both Pawsen and Mundell that they perfectly understood that it was to coat this amount and no more. Judgment would bo for the defendant without costs. TOINO OBSCENE LANGUAGE. William Fox was charged with rising obscene language in n public place on Sunday, May 20th. The offence was proved by Walter Johnson and a punishment of 14 dajs imprisonment inflicted. The Conr 'hen adjourned.