RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Temuka Leader, Issue 1856, 21 February 1889, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Geraldine—Wednesday, Feb. 20, 1880. CITIL CASES. Mrs Taylor v. B. Chiverson—Claim £3 4s. Mr P. Wilson Smith appeared for plaintiff. This was a claim for balance of rent due and for a riding habit. Mrs Chiverson appeared for her> husband, and deposed that she did not dispute owing for the rent, but for the riding-habit charged in the account. She did not, however, produce a receipt for the same, which, she stated had ■ been paid in the rent account. Judgment for amount and costs. W. Upton Slack v. P. LeOren and others (executors in the estate of the late Julius Mendelson) —Claim £5 0s 3d.

Mr P. Wilson Smith appeared for plaintiff, and Mr M. J. Knubley for defendants. The short facts of the case were stated to be as follows: In 1875 the plaintiff went to England, and on returning to New Zealand brought with him two rolls of oilcloth. Pinding that he did not require these he left them with Mr Julius Mendelson, of Temuka, to dispose of to the best advantage. The present claim was for the value of «ne roll, which Mr Mendelson had sold to th® Bank of New Zealand, Temuka.

Plaintiff in evidence stated that he had had a running account with Mr Mendelson, and never asked him for the money. Having heard that the oilcloth had been sold he spoke to Mr LeCren about it last month, and also the other executors, but not getting' any satisfactory reply had caused the present summons to be issued. He had since Mr Mendelson’s death in 1882 spoken to Mr Ormsby and Mr Morris, who both admitted that plaintiff ought to be paid, Mr LeCren had told him that there was no record of the transaction on the books relating to the oilcloth. He had no doubt, however, that the claim was a just one, but under the circumstances he could not legally see his way clear to pay. R, H. Pearpoint, who was accountant to the late Mr Mendelson at the time of the transaction, and W. A. Walton, storeman, deposed to the sale of the oil-cloth to the agents of the Bank of Hew Zealand, Temuka, at the time the new bank was opened. That was the case for the plaintiff. Mr Knubley, in defence, pleaded the statute of limitation, and stated that the transaction, if such ever did take place, and there was nothing in Mr Mendelson’s books to show that it did, occurred about fourteen years ago. P. LeCren, one of the defendants, stated that he had looked over the books, but could not find any record of the transaction. If there had been he would have paid plaintiff the amount of the claim. After some consideration the bench gave judgment for defendants, with solicitor’s fee. This being all the business the court adjourned.