RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1806, 23 October 1888, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tbmfica— Monday, Oct. 22; 1888. [Before K. F. Gray and J. T. M. Hayhurst, Eaqs,, J.P.’s], ■■ y; 7 , CITIL CASKS. : James Winning v. J. Fielding—Claim £3l7s4d. Judgment by default for amount •claimed and costs. G, McS. Gemlemun v. Swaney Bros.— Claim £ll4s. Mr Aspinall appeared for defendants. Plaintiff stated that he was the purchaser of the book debts of the estates of Siegert and Fauvel and of Julius Siegert. The defendants were indebted to the estate of Julius Siegert in the above amount. Julius Siegert, sworn, said that the account was correct and all charges reasonable. Cross-examined by Mr Aspinall: Had sent horses to Swaney sto graze. Was not aware that one of them had torn a cover belonging to the Swaneys. Had not promised to replace it or repair it. The collar and hames in the account.was supplied in witness s presence.. In a previous account a charge of £2 had been made. This had not been received by them at the time. They were to get it at any time. Had in his capacity of clerk to plaintiff rendered an account to defendants of 19s 6d. The collar and hames were not included in it. Witness was examined at considerable length as to a pair of moleskin trousers charged, returned, and not allowed for. Mr Aspinall claimed that plaintiff must be nonsuited on the ground that no notice had been given in writing to the .defendants of the purchase of the book debts by plaintiff.

THo JBench decided to bear further evidence.

Jaimes Swaney said that Siegert had asked them to graze horses and promised to repair a cover torn. The repairs bad been charged for. Had never received £2 in cash as charged. . The promissory note, in which it was included, was signed before the account was mads out. Had objected to it, and also to a charge of 5s for exchange. Had not received written notice of the purchase of the book debts. The collar and hames charged had not been received by him. Plaintiff produced a ledger showing that some moleskins and other items disputed had been credited. Peter Swaney corroborated his brother’s evidence. Had not, to his recollection, received a £1 cheque when going to Ashburton. Had told Gentlemun that they owed Siegert nothing.

Plaintiff said that he had given verbal notice of the purchase of the book debts, and could produce the block of a cheque book showing that £1 had been paid to Swaney Bros, Judgment was given for defendants. The Court then rose.