RESIDENT MAGISTRATES’ COURT.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 25, 4 November 1871, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES’ COURT.

i November 3. Before W. Fraser, Esq., R.M. W.j Hough v. L. Cussen.— Claim for £ls 3s. 4d., on a promissory note. Mr Macdonald for plaintiff. No appearance of defendant. Judgment ffor~p]aintiff for £l4 15s and costs, £2 11s. Bridget Gaffney v. J. Murray.— Claim for £l, money lent,. No defence. Judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed, and costs, 14a.. * A. W.- Lasoelles v. Gladstone G.M.C. —Claim for £7 11s, for professional services, &c. Mr Tyler for complainant. No appearance of defendant. Mr Lasceljes stated that defendant admitted the liability, and requested him to bring jthis action with a view to wind up the company. Judgment for plaintiff. W. Arscott v. C. Stevenson. —Claim for. £5 on a promissory note. No defence. Judgment for plaintiff on confession of debt. D. McNab v. C. Stevenson.— Claim for £4 on a promissory note. No defence. Judgment for plaintiff on confession of debt.

M. Costeghon v. D. Wilson. —This was an action to recover the sum of £3O damages,,for non-delivery of three shares in the'Otago G.M.C. Mr Macdonald appeared for the plaintiff. The defendant did not appear. Judgment for plaintiff for £26 and costs, £6 2s. G. Macdonald v. 11. Jury. —Claim for £5 9s lid for goods sold and received.— No defence. —Judgment for plaintiff with costs, 255. G. Macdonald v. 11. Jury.— Claim for £5 13s 9d for goods.—The defendant said he owed the money, hut could not pay all at once. He had agreed to pay £1 per week ,to his creditors.—The R.M. gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed, telling the defendant he had no doubt Mr. Macdonald would agree to take the amount by instalments, but he should make no order to that effect, as this was for necessaries, bread, and so forth. ; Conroy and Foss v. J. Ross. —Claim for £5 12s 6d for butcher’s meat.—The defendant said he owed the money, but he was not now able to pay. He was out of work, and was an out-patient of the Hospital.—Mr Foss stated that he was quite willing to take the amount by small instalments.—Judgment for plaintiffs. Conroy and Foss v. J. Robb. —Claim for LI 10s 5d for butcher’s meat. —Judgment for plaintiffs. John Bartlem v. G. Macdonald.— Mr Macdonald for plaintiff, Mr Dodd for defendant. This was an action in detinue to recover the sum of LSO. —The plaintiff deposed that some time ago he purchased a quantity of kauri logs from Captain Daldy, through Mr Sargent. The logs were off Miranda. There were 11,000 feet. They are now on the beach at Grahamstown, in possession of Mac donald. The purchase took place in June, 1870. The logs were then at Miranda Creek. Witness refused to pay anything to the Maoris, and Macdonald would not give them up. Can swear to the logs, on account of their being branded with Combes and Daldy’s brand, and with that of witness.—H. R. Jones deposed that lie lent the money to last witness to purchase logs with from Combes and Daldy, through Mr Lamb. The has been returned. Witness was present when Macdonald offered to give up possession of the logs if Bartlem would pay tho natives, .and for the squaring of the timber. Macdonald said he had paid the natives £lO for the logs.—Reter Lamb stated that he sold a quantity of logs for Messrs. Combes and Daldy to Bartlem, the plaintiff, for £SO. The logs were at, or near, tho Miranda Creek.—Peter Whelan and George Way deposed to their knowledge of the logs in question, as being those purchased by plaintiff from Mac-donald.--George Macdonald, tho defendant, deposed that he knew a native called Tarapipi. From him he purchased, about eleven weeks ago, a quantity of logs. Never knew the plaintiff Bartlem until he ettme over in a cutter the other day and claimed the logs as having been bought by him from Combes and Daldy. Witness told him if he could point out any with Combes and Daldy’s brand on, lie could take them. Some of the logs which witness bought from the natives had bushmen’s brands on them, and others had none. Witness told Bartlem that if he would pay witness what the timber cost he could have it.— John Petersen, farmer, stated that he knows the beach between tho Waitakoruru and Miranda creeks. There were only four logs on that beach twelve months a g o .—Neither of the learned counsel addressed the Court, and the R.M. gave judgment for plaintiff for £SO, to be reduced to one shilling if the logs are delivered up to plaintiff within 48 hours. W. Jones v. J. Lynch. —Mr Macdonald for plaintiff, Mr Tyler for defendant. This was an action in detinue to recover the sum of £SO for building materials, &c., which it was alleged plaintiff had wrongfully converted to his own use. The plaintiff claimed £25 for the value of the materials, and £25 for their detention. Mr Tyler raised a preliminary objection that in actions of detinue the R.M. had no jurisdiction over £2O. This was overruled by the R.M., and the case proceeded. The wife of the plaintiff deposed that her husband took down from Tapu, timber and buiiding material to Coromandel, and there put up two Jtouses, one of which Mr Lynch has removed to the opposite side of the creek. They were taken to Coromandel in October, 1869, and were left in charge of Mr Kirby, of that place, who agreed to rent them for 3s per week, in the December following. Mr E - Wilson was to receive the rent. Never authorised Mr Lynch to take them. Witness’s husband did not accompany her to Coromandel. He is in the Colony. Can’t say if the houses were put up on Mr Lynch’s land. Is of opinion that the land belonged to Government. Mr Lynch did offer to give £3 for the house. Nothing was said about a Mr Jasper having removed the house. —John Lynch, the defendant, deposed that he is a settler, and resides at Coromandel. Knows the building spoken of. It stands upon ground which witness obtained from Government in exchange for his own. A portion of the building was removed by a man named Jasper, who was living in it, to the other side of the creek. The other part is affixed to the ground by being nailed on to piles. The timbers are old. Witness told Mrs Jones slm could take the house away or he would give her £3 for it, but she wanted £lO, and this witness would not give, and she then kicked up a great row. Witness made no objection to Jasper removing the house, rior did he interfere in the matter. —Mr Tyler submitted that the building being affixed to the soil became part of the reality. The plaintiff could not recover, even supposing the Court had jurisdiction, which he contended it had not. Mr Macdonald replied, contending that it-had not been proved that the buildings were not attached to the freehold, and that plaintiff was entitled to recover. —The R.M. said he felt quite satisfied that the building was part of the real estate, and that lie had no jurisdiction in the matter.

Maryann Sawyer v. T. Robinson. — This was an action to recover the sum of £5 Is Gd, for goods.—Mr Macdonald appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Lascelles for the defendant. —The plaintiff having deposed to the goods having been supplied, Mr Lascelles cross-examined the plaintiff, to show that the store was kept jointly by herself and one Job Tyler, and th&t he might have received payment for the goods. The witness said she could not say whether her husband was alive or not, as she had not heard of him for a long time;—Thomas Robinson, the defendant, stated that, he had paid for all he had out of the store. Sometimes he paid the plaiqtiff, sometimes her sou, and sometimes Mr. Tyler. Does not owe anything to the plaintiff.—Job Tyler gave evidence of Robinson having paid him for goods supplied in the store. Witness and plaintiff were then living together as Mr and Mrs Tyler. The store belonged to witness, and does so now. —Mr Lascelles submitted that throughout the whole business, Tyler was the responsible person, and that Mrs Sawyer was altogether out of Court. —Mr Macdonald having replied, rhe R.M. said lie was of opinion that there was some collusion between the defendant and Tyler, but under the unfortunate circumstances in which the plaintiff had placed herself, he should nonsuit her, but without costs.. Jas. Shandley v. P. Griffin— This was an action to recover the sum of £3O for an alleged breach of agreement for the sale and transfer of one share in the Thames G.M.C.—Mr Lascelles appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Mclntyre for the defence.—Peter Griffin, the defendant, deposed that he is a painter, living at Grahamstown, and became acquainted with the plaintiff in consequence of this transaction. Sold him a share in the Thames G.M.C., through an agent, for £24 10s, and signed a transfer, which was returned, as the signature was unlike, and he then signed a second one, and made an affidavit also. The legal manager stated that the share could not be transfered because of the signature. —In answer to Mr Mclntyre, witness said he had taken all the trouble he could to put the matter right. Had drawn dividends from the company. Had offered to give the plaintiff his money back, and pay expenses.— Robt. Somerville, Secretary of the Thames G.M.C., said the transfer produced was forwarded to the Company for registration, but was returned because the signature of the transferor did not correspond with the signature in the books. In consequence of frauds which have been perpetrated upon the company, it has become necessary to take great care as to signatures. — John Styak admitted that he signed the signature of Griffin, and witnessed it, and also admitted that it was wrong so to do. [The R.M.: Is that the Mr Styak who is a J.P ?—Witness: Yes.] — James. Shandley, the plaintiff, deposed that he purchased from Griffin a share in the Thames G.M.C. for £24 10s on the 21st- Sept., but has been unable to get it transferred, and has been put to considerable loss and inconvenience in thematter, and has had to go to Auckland several times about it. Witness offered to let plaintiff off his bargain if he would pay expenses. Witness has been offored £25 for the share several times over, but could not sell it.. On the return of the second transfer, Mr Griffin did offer to give witness the market price for the share, but witness declined to take it. He also offered £24, hut this was also declined. He also said he would get another scrip, but ho delayed about it.—The defendant was recalled and said that he has purchased a share for £24 10s, which he was perfectly ready and willing to transfer to the plaintiff.—Mr Leßert deposed to selling for Mr Griffin a share in the Thames G.M C. to the plaintiff.—L. Mchlrose and George Maule were examined as to the transaction, and the learned counsel having addressed the Court on behalf of their respective clients, the Court gave judgment for plaintiff for £3O and costs, the R.M. observing that it was through Mr Styak having signed and witnessed a signature of Griffin’s which the man never signed that all this matter had arisen. The plaintiff seemed to have acted properly in the matter, and so had defendant up to a certain date at all events, and it was to Mr Styak that lie must look for his remedy. S. Young v. J. Coiien. —This was an action to recover the sum of £SO for an alleged breach of contract for the sale and transfer of the lease of the Anchor Hotel. Mr Macdonald appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Tyler for defendant. Mr Tyler raised a preliminary objection that the plaint disclosed no contract or mutuality between the parties. The R.M. said he would note the objection, but his impression was that there was mutuality, as plaintiff appeared to have paid £2O. —Mr Craig, auctioneer, produced an agreement between the parties, to which Mr .Tyler took exception as being insufficiently stamped. The document bore a shilling stamp, which was held insufficient, and Mr Macdonald agreed to pay the extra sum.—John Cohen deposed that when he signed the document he was very busy and hardly knew what he signed, but he did agree to let the hotel, and was willing to do so until last Monday morning. The agreement set forth that plaintiff agreed to let the hotel for £6 10s per week for twelve months. The stock, &c., to be taken at a valuation. Mr Cohon, Mr Young, and Mr Leers came up on Friday morning and made some objection to’taking the inventory of stock. They went away, and came again in the afternoon, and it was finally agreed that the stock should be taken on Monday, at 10 o’clock, but at that time Mr Craig came and said, “ It’s no use going on with the stock-taking, as everything has come to nothing.” The house is mortgaged, and there is a bill of sale over the stock. The mortgagee (L. D. Nathan) made an objection, but witness would have paid him off. Might have said the mortgage was paid. That would have been untrue. Might have said there was not a shilling owing on the place. When the agreement was made, on the 25th October, witness intended to carry it out. Had several dray loads of spirits and four hogsheads of beer into the house between the 25tli October and the Monday following. The spirits were from L. D. Nathan and Co. They were ordered a month before. The order for the beer was given a fortnight before. The value of the spirits and beer would be about £2OO. The amount of the mortgage is about £4OO. Might have said it was £7OO. Paid Mr Leers £lO for attending for the purpose of valuing the stock. Witness never refused to complete the agreement. —Mr Craig stated that he negotiated this matter between Air \oung and Mr Cohen. Witness drew up the agreement. Mr Young did not sign it. Air Cohen said to Mr Young that it would cost about £2OO to come into the house. Mr Cohen said the house was mortgaged for £7OO. Saw and read letter from L. D. Nathan, and then said, “ We’ll see about this and Mr Cohen said, “ You can do your damnedest.” Put men to watch the place. Saw three dray loads of spirits go into the hotel on the Friday morning—--39 cases and 14 casks. On Saturday saw

four hogsheads of beer and 2 casks delivered. Afterwards had an interview at Mr Macdonald’s office about the matter, when a letter was sent to Mr. Tyler, who replied thereto. (Letter objected to by Mr Tyler, who stated that he was acl ing for L. D. Nathan and Co., and the letter would not be evidence as against Cohen). Mr Young could have got £IOO for his bargain. £6 10s'is ~ a good rent for the premises, but there is £2 10s per week coming in from the billiard-room, and £2 per week for the restaurant. Did not proceed with the stock-taking, because he understood that there was a mortgage, and that the mortgagee was likely to foreclose. Knew there was a mortgage before but Mr Cohen had paid that off, or at all events showed him the butt of cheque to prove so.—Samuel Young, the plaintiff, deposed to signing the agreement duced and paying £2O to Mr Cohen. Considers that he has lost £SO by defendant refusing to carry out his agreement.—D. J. O’Keeffe, auctioneer, &c., identified the signature of a letter produced as being that of Mr Tyler.—[Mr Tyler objected to the reception of the ‘letter as it was written in pursuance of instruction from L. D. Nathan & Co. and could not be used as against Mr Cohen]. —The letter was admitted in evidence. It stated that the mortgage was likely to foreclose.— Janies Cook, traveller, &c., deposed that he had a conversation with Mr Cohen in which that person said the place was his own, and that it was not mortgaged.— Mr Tyler moved for a nonsuit on the ground that the contract was unilateral and there was no mutuality or reciprocity between the parties ; moreover, that no breach of the agreement had been made by Cohen, who was ready and willing to carry out the contract' until the time of Mr Craig making an objection to value on the ground of there being no mortgage. The Court reserved judgment on the nonsuit points.—Mr Tyler then addressed the Court for the defence on the merits of the case, and re-called the defendant, to show that he had never refused to carry out the agreement; that he had given instructions for a lease to be drawn up, but Mr Young, through Mr Craig, backed out of the bargain.—M. W. Leers, hotel-broker, &c., Auckland, deposed to being employed by Mr Cohen to value the stock, furniture, &c., of the Anchor Hotel, but the valuation was not gone on with because Mr Craig said it was no use going on as there was a mortgage which stopped everything.—The R.M. said, upon the merits of the case, he entertained no doubt whatever, but upon the nonsuit points raised he would like to look at the authorities, and would therefore reserve judgment. —The Court adjourned at ten minutes to seven p.m. until half-past ten a.m. this day (Saturday).