RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2046, 15 May 1890, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Geraldine—Wednesday, April SO. ;[Before C. A. Wray, Esq., KM.] GIYIIi CASES. Mitchell and Turner v. Mrs Johnstone—Claim £4 lis. Mr F. Wilson Smith for plaintiff. Henry Turner, one of the irm, who are hawkers, deposed to having delivered the goods to the house from the van. The account had been repeatedly rendered and never disputed before. In reply to defendant plaintiff said he had supplied some of the goods since her husband's death in 1880. To the Bench: The plaintiff said some of these things were got before her husband's death, and some afterwards. January 1882, was when the last goods were supplied. They had not sued for the account before because they only had the one case in the district, and it would involve great loss of time to come dewn for the ene case.

Defendant said she had got some of these goods in 1879, 1880, and 1882, while her husband was alive. She had some things since he died and had paid plaintiffs tor all she had get with the exception of 3s sd. She had got the goods five or six years ago. His Worship took a considerable amount of'trouble to ascertain the goods?, obtained after the death of husband. After going carefully into the matter His Worship ■aid that plaintiffs had themselves to blame- for not looking after their money better, He did not consider the defendant was liable for goods supplied during her husbands lifetime, but was liable for payments after her husbands' death. Of this she had paid £2 Os 7d, leaving a balance of 4s 7d due. Judgment would be for the 4s 7d, with costs 9s. R. H. Pearpoint v. R. Croton— Claim £4 7s lid. Judgment summons. Defendant did not appear, and an order was made for the amount to be paid forthwith or in default 14 days' imprisonment. ,; ; E. Übles v. C. Trengrove—Claim £2 lis 6d. This was a rehearing of a case tried in April last, when default was; given for plaintiff. Mr E> Wilson Smith appearedjor defendant. Plaintiff deposed to the goods having been obtained, but stated he had never received the money. Plaintiff's son deposed to defendant having told him some six months ago that he owed plaintiff a small account. Witness said to him, " Tes, I know you do." Witness afterwards handed him an account for the amount claimed, when defendant deniect owing it. G. Trengrove, defendant, swocn, stated that he had paid plaintiff in No. 2 booth at the Geraldine Eaces in' March, ;;1885. Plaintiff had not got the conveniences for writing a receipt, but -'Ldefendant had a stamp and a piece of ink pencil, and plaintiff gave him a receipt. Defendant put the receipt on a file at home, but afterwards got into trouble and was away two years, his household being broken

GK Pox, carrier, sworn, said he went int© the booth mentioned at the G-eral-dine Baces in 1885. .Saw Coles hand Trengrove a piece of paper, which witness thought was a bill. Trengrove pulled out his pocket book, as if about to pay the money, Witness thought defendant was about ta"pay the money, and seeing they wgre transacting business together he withdrew. Saw no money pass-between the parties. ' Samuel . Trengrove,-. ihe.. father of defendant, sworn, said, that, when his son was sent away he told witness to sell up all the things in the house. Witness looked over some files of bills .and receipts. He look over the receipts carefully one by one, and - then as he was going to Christchurch and could not take . them with him, burnt them. He swore positively that he saw plaintiffs receipt for the amount claimed. Plaintiff recalled was asked if any-1 tning in the evidence of witnesses brought to mind the fact of the money having been paid. Plaintiff said it did not, he was perfectly . certain he had not had the money His Worship said there was a misapprehension somewhere. He was perfectly sure that plaintiff was speaking the truth, but was not quita so certain about defendant. However, h© did not think plaintiff had proved his case sufficiently te warrant him in giving a judgment in his favor, and he would therefore nonsuit him so that in the event of his getting further evidence he could bring the case on again at a future time. JSTo coats were allowed. This being all the business the court rose.