RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1812, 6 November 1888, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temitka—Mokdat, Nov. 5,1888.

[Before K. F. Gray and J, Guild, Esqs., J.P.'s]. . CITIL Ci.SE. J. M. Twomey v. J. Farrell—Claim £lloa. Mr Aspinall for plaintiff. This was a claim for advertising application for, and transfer of license of the "Winchester Hotel from Bichard Young to John Farrell. W. Wills, sworn: "Was clerk of the Licensing Bench in the month of May, 1887. Saw Mr John Farrell, who instructed him to arrange for the transfer of license, and do all that was necessary. Had accordingly inserted the advertisement. Mr Farrell did not exactly order him to advertise. His instructions were to do all that was necessary, and it was necessary to advertise according to the Act. He may hare written to Mr Farrell stating that he was liable to pay for advertising, but could not recollect having done io. J. M. Twomey, sworn, stated that the documents before the Court ordering the insertion of the advertisements were taken by Mr Wills to his office. Produced the papers showing the advertisement had been inserted. The account was sent to Mr Farrell, but he took no notice of it. Something annoyed him 'after that, and when the next account went to him Mr Farrell wrote deny- 1 ing his liability and stopping his paper. Witness then went to Mr Wills, who wrote a letter ; to Mr Farrell warning fhim that he (Mr Wills) wae ready to prove in a Court of Justice that he (Mr Farrell) was~ liable. Witness posted thin letter with his own hands.;;;-Mr' Farrell afterwards met witnesrin froctuf the Bank of New Zealand, Temuka, and witness asked "Are we going to'have a Court case over these 30s f" Mr Farrell replied that hejdicLjiQt-tkmk he was liabl»,buc that he would pay it. Witness took no further action until he saw Mr Wills was likely to leave Temuka. Witness then'wrote to Mr Farrell telling him that-if he would acknowledge the debt he could have any any amount of time to pay it, but that unless he gave witness a written acknowledgement it would be necessary to Bue him before Mr Wills left Temuka. To this Mr Farrell replied repudiating any liability, and witness could do nothing then but issue the summons to J see who was liable.

To the defendant: The first ,'time the account was rendered to you, you took no notice of it. The second time you wrote stopping your paper, and denying liability for it.,, You wrote a second time from Lincoln denying liability. John Earrell,, sworn, called attention to the fact that the account rendered to him was foi May 17,1888. Mr Aspinall said that was a clerical error, 1888 haying been put in in lieu «MBB7. The Court decided not to take any * notice of the clerical error and prooeeded with the case. "Witness denied he had any transactions with the plaintiff. Gay*) in- " structions to Mr Wills to do, all that was necessary respecting -the transfer of the license, and paid him £8 18s; There was nothing said about advertising.

W. Wills, recalled, stated be receiTd £3 18a from Mr Farrell, but this was for stamps and other expenses. This did not include the advertising. •••.-, yr To the defendant: Tou authorised me to do erery thing that was ; necessary. Advertising was necessary under the Act. ~ Judgment was given for the amount claimed, and costs 19s. j, j The Court, then adjourned.n \