RESIDENT MAGISTRATES’ COURT. Yesterday.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 13, 21 October 1871, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES’ COURT. Yesterday.

Before W. Fraser, Esq., R.M. Baylis v. Wilson. —This was a judgment summons case. The amount due and owing was £6 17s Gd, for which judgment was recovered in August last. The defendant was now examined as to his means and ability to pay. He said he had no property except some scrip in the Belmount and Laura, which he had offered to plaintiff but he would not take it. He had had no work for some months, but had been living on a little money he had by him, but it was very little. He had lost money on scrip which had brought him down .very low. It was not ti - ue that he had threatened to file his schedule if pressed by plaintiff. All he owed would not amount to the law expenses and going through the Court. He was willing to pay iOs per week.—The R.M. made an order for payment of 10s per week, and in default of payment one month’s imprisonment. Nevada G.M.C. v. H. C. Collett.— Claim for £6 os for calls. This case stood over for .judgment. The R.M. said he had intended to give judgment to-day, but the matter had escaped his memory. —Mr Tyler remarked that the late Lord Eldon was said to have shed tears when placed in a similar position (a laugh). The case was again postponed. W. Davies v. J. Stevens. —Claim for £4 8s 2d for goods sold and delivered. No appearance of defendant —Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed. J. C. D. Bowden v. T. S. Audley.— Claim for £6 18s Gd on a judgment summons. The defendant was examined as to means and ability to pay, and said he would pay if he could, but he had other liabilities to pay olf at the rate of 10s per week. This he was paying voluntarily. He was in receipt of £2 per week from Mr Wright, surveyor. Had no family. Order made for payment of 10s per week, or in default one month’s imprisonment. J. Buciianan, as Trustee in the Estate of Oughton and Myers v. John Kelly.— Claim for £ll 19s lOd for goods. Mr Miller for plaintiff, Mr Lascelles for defendant. —The defendant claimed a set off for washing and work done by his wife for plaintiff, but said lie did not know what the exact amount was (the set off was set down at £ls), but he supposed his wife would know all about it. The payment for the washing,&e., was to be taken out in groceries. Cannot say what amount of groceries were supplied, received£l on account of washing. Never had any settlement of account.—A. F. Myers deposed that plaintiff was trustee in the estate of Oughton and Myers. Knew defendant John Kelly. He is indebted to the firm for the amount claimed for goods supplied to him in 1869. —By Mr. Lascelles : The goods were supplied partly to defendant himself and partly to his wife. The prices are fair and reasonable. Witness believes he owes defendant some money for working. Mr. Oughton is not indebted to defendant that witness was aware of. Witness has often asked defendant to furnish his account. The defendant did washing for witness for three months, and there may be about £2 owing for that. —Arthur Bennett, clerk in Mr. Macdonald’s office, deposed that the order conferring the appointment of Mr. Buchanan as trustee in the estate of Oughton and Myers had been mislaid in the office, and therefore it could not be produced.— Mr Lascelles submitted that this was not sufficient evidence as to the missing document. —The Resident Magistrate said he had judical knowledge of the existance of the document. It had already been produced in Court at a former hearing, and there was sufficient evidence of its being mislaid. He must therefore over-rule the objection.—Mr. Lascelles requested his Worship to take a note of the objection.— The case then proceeded.—Elizabeth Kelly, the defendant’s wife, was then called, and being ssworn, she took exception to the prices charged by Oughton and Myers in the bill of particulars, saying their tea was charged too high (3s Gd per lb), and so were the pickles (Is 4d per bottle), their candles, &c. Witncs washed four dozen articlesjat defendant’s request for 25 weeks, at 3s per dozen. Only received £1 on account of the washing. Mr. Myers and Mr. Oughton lived together, and Mrs. Oughton was there sometimes, and witness did all the washing. The defendant told witness she must take out the goods in washing, or she could get no money. If she could have got paid cash, she would not have bought goods from Oughton and Meyers at such prices as they charged ; but she could not get any money. Mr Meyers was always humbugging her.—By Mr Miller: Did not keep any book, but knows there were four

I» dozen things >vashed at Mr Meyers, request, for twenty-five weeks ; also washed a lot of blankets for Mr Meyers, and just before he got married, she washed everything up for him.—The defendant was called, and said he knew that his wife did the washing for Oughton and Meyers, as well as for Meyers, because the former told him in the street that Mrs Kelly must take it out in groceries.—The learned counsel having addressed the Court, the Resident Magistrate said he was of opinion that a fair set-off had been made out. He would look upon the set-off as equalising the debt, and would pronounce judgment in favor of neither party. Collett and Thomson v. E. Brown. —Claim for £3O, for damages arising out of an alleged breach of contract for sale of certain mining shares in the Otago.— Mr Laseelles for plaintiff, Mr Miller for defendant. —Henry G. Collett, one of the plaintiffs, deposed : I am a shareholder, living in Grahamstown, and am in partnership with W. Thomson. Know defendant. On the lltli September, I was introduced by Mr Rich to Brown, the defendant, as a holder of Otago shares. I bought five shares from Brown, at £4 15s. each, and gave him a cheque for that amount for them. Subsequently was informed that the shares could not be transferred, as the calls had not been paid. Witness afterwards sold the shares to another party at £5 2s, and then an action was brought against witness, which lie settled out of Court by payment Shares were worth L 6 10s at the time of return of transfer.—Louis Rich, sharebroker, [deposed : I know the parties to this suit. I sold some Otagos for Brown, five shares at L 4 15s. Collett gave his own cheque for them and deducted witness’s commission. Collett afterwards sold three shares. I heard from Mr Layden afterwards that the shares could not be transferred unless the calls were made. Laydon was the purchaser for Mr Graham. Brown afterwards said the calls had been paid.—By Mr Miller : I am a sliaiebroker. I have not got an office. I do business sometimes in the street. Should be glad to do business for you there (a laugh).—John Leydon, the purchaser of the shares from Collett, deposed to being unable to get the shares transferred until the calls had been made. Witness then brought an action against Collett.—By Mr Miller : The transfer produced is in my opinion a complete document. J. S. McKellar is legal manager of the Otago.—By Mr Laseelles : Brown did admit that he owed calls, but said he should not pay. —Counsel having addressed the Court, his Worship gave judgment for plaintiff, with costs.

J. J. Holland v. C. Perry.— Claim for £3 for freight carried along the Ilape Creek tramway, for the Pretty Nelly Tributers. —The defendant stated that he was not liable except for his own share, which he had offered to pay.—Judgment for plaintiff. G. Holdship & Co. v. W. Read and J Scott. —This was an action to recover the sum of £33 7s lOd for goods sold and delivered. Mr Tyler for plaintiff, Mr Dodd for defendants, who put in a set off.—Mr D®dd Said he had a proposition to make, which he hoped would be accepted by the other side: that the matter should be referred to arbitration. —Mr Tyler said he could not consent.—Mr Dodd then asked for an adjournment of the case to next court day, on the ground that lie had only just received his instructions.—Mr Tyler opposed the adjournment ; and the R.M. said he did not think he would be justified in granting the adjournment. John Scott, one of the defendants, was examined by Mr Tyler, and stated that part of the goods claimed for, had been supplied to him, and others, to his partner. He,however, objected to several of the items, and to the dates in the bill of particulars, which he said were not correct. The items were made up of charges for timber, bricks, nails, screws, time and other building materials, by Messrs. Holdship to Messrs. Read and Scott. The case, which was of Very little interest except to the parties concerned, occupied the Court some time. Mr. Davidson, manager to Messrs. Holdship, was examined at some length as to the several items, and the dispute was ultimately reduced to a few items only. The defendant Read admitted that the bulk of the items were correct, and if he had had the money he would have paid it with the exception of what he considered to be overcharge. At the close of the case his Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for £33 Is 10d., being six shillings less than the amount sued for, and costs, £G 18. Adolph Biessell v. F. Corkill. —This was an action to recover the sum of £2 35., money lent. Mr. Dodd appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Miller for defendant. The complainant deposed that defondant was indebted to him for the amount debited in the bill of particulars—the items are for board and lodging, for passage from Auckland, for a pair of trousers and a waistcoat, and for money lent. The defendant denied that he owed plaintiff anything at all, but that on the contrary the plaintiff was in his debt for wages for which he sued a week ago, and for which he obtained judgment, but execution was stayed so as to give an opportunity to plaintiff to bring this cro«s action. The plaintiff and defendant having given their respective versions of the matter, the Court gave judgment for plaintiff for 13s, and 19s costs.

W. G. Hibbee v ADOLrn Beissell. — Claim for £8 15s, for goods supplied. The defendant admitted the debt, but said he wanted time to pay it in. He thought he had been rather hastily dealt with in this matter. The R.M. said rather short notice had been given because it had been represented to the Court that the defendant was about to leave the country with a view to defraud his creditors. Therefore, unless reason were shown to the contrary, immediate execution would be granted. Defendant was then examined by Mr Dodd, and said he was not going to leave the country. He had not sold his business to Mr Simmons of Auckland. Had a lease of the house at Grahamstown, and the furniture and tools of trade. Never told Mr Hibble about disposing of the business to Mr Simmons. The furniture has not been moved out of place, nor is it now in course of removal. Judgment for plaintiff. The R.M. said he would make no order as to the payment of the money. The evidence showed that plaintiff had the means of satisfying the debt. The Court rose at 4.15 p.m.