CIVIL SIDE.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2170, 17 December 1875, Page 2

CIVIL SIDE.

; PABAWAI APPEAL CASES. The cases of Edward H. Beere, Jqha Andrew, and Arthur J. Bedford, appeals apainst the assessment of the. Parawai District Board> ytwfite adjournei'till't&e 7th January. His Worship said that Mr P. C. Dean appeared in two o£ these case—in one as silent and the olfe»*by power of attorney. He (His^VTorship) - had doubts as to his-power to entertain appeals by agent or attorney, unless tinder 5 authority specially given: to-.them, and he . ;had not the, necessary, authorities,-to look ;up the case here." He would be going to ;Auckland soon, and he would then look up further authorities, to be able to decide t by the 1 time the cases came, on again oiv the 7th January. •;;.-•;;;- - | . .. AI>jqUBNEE;CASES;;':;- ■s';: ■' lW';; ; The following cases were adjourned; to ; 7th Jauuary by consent: —Edward Thomas Wildman v. Roderick Boss Mac* gregor, £11 Os, balance of account stated; Veale and; Hudson v. Balph DavictsonX £lls 3s, gppds;"; Murdo *McKenzie til Alex.- Hogg • '£50/ bo^rd &c:: f John (Dos- ', grave v. „01 TO. Mason Creagh, £3, goods. ■-'■' ""A'L '■''-f-i-.i'J.i ky \ ■■:.;; GEOBGE M'CAUi>V.;.E. T V BBIS9EMI)EN. Claim £23 Is 3d for goods supplied. Mr Macdpnald for plaintiff; no appearance of defendant. v \ Plaintiff proved the claim in the usual manner. Judgment for plaintiff for amouqt claimed, and costs, £,2 Us. NATIONAL BANK JS.Z. V. PtTKETUr O.M CO. Claim £20 14s balance of account. Mr Macdonald for plaintiff; no appearance of defendant. t _...>.. The claim . was "prored, > by * James Hendpy, mauager bank, Grahanistown,.. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed, and costs, £3 17s, subject to production of certificate of incorporation.

' -Defended "Cases.' " eabnest wyatt t. £. and a. smith. Claim £3 2s'6d for work and labor, done. Mr Macdonald for defendants. Earnest Wyatt, sworn, deposed—That he was a laborer. Hpjriyetted five lengths of iron and a good many niore. Mr Macdonald said plaintiff had claimed for five lengths, whereas he had done 65, lengths, and should have charged for that, giving credit for amount reserved. He had no objection to plaint being amended. Plaintiff continued—He had been rivetting the iron without" dohtract, and was paid fortnightly. There were five lengths at 12s 6d not paid for. Cross-examined by Mr Macdonald— When I went on I told Mr Smith I was not a rivetter. The first fortnight no objection was made, and I was paid. After the work was done Mr Smith took me along the work and pointed out some of the:jrivets^ There was: only money kept back the two last fortnights; ;I r didn't try and mend the rivets nor send; any one else. I went With Mr Smith and he chalked some of the rivets. He commenced nearest to the point where I commenced work. He. said the reason he hadn't"'paid 1 me was because the work fragffy finished. That' was after I came dp^a^and I didn't see that I should go back/ ■'-■■k-:-w■■'-•'■•:■ A"- -..— -■■'■■ ■ _.; . .\, : E. N. Smith, defendant, deposed—That ha .coulda't say he made-tbe H bargain with plaintiff!!,,*^hat; had, : been said, between ; him and s wyiati he knew something about. There^was a number of bad rivets, and he kept back: a part of the money. Wyatt said he, would remedy them. He paid Wyatt always-up to.an even, number of plates, keeping back a part of themoney. If cosl;-about t£7?t6 put the work right.;

The Court-said defendants had no case. They must pay the amounts, £3 2s 6d and 19s costs'. ? If they had a case against plaintiff they c6uld r recover.

KDZ.EN HOLDSWOkrk V. JOHN MCDONALD. Claim ;^2ocaish lent. ' ; •. , ; T Mr Tyler 1 for'plaintiff, Mr Macdonald for defendant.

John McDonald, defendantj .deposed—That he knew the cheque produced* It was plaintiff's He got the money and paid it to plaintifFii :At? no timeidid he get a loan from plaintiff of £10. He filled' that cheque in at plaintiff's request.. He didn't-waht (JanVass at thatrtime and get that £10, nor at any other time. ; Another cheque produced witness said'he drew for plaintiff and cashed for her.giving her the money. ■'.He.didn't borrow £10 from her to pay for tifiiber to make an addition to his house.. She was living at defendant's for.'ab'oat 20 months, she left she did,not ask,for £20 she had lent. She once wrote a letter asking for it. She left last August. Ellen Holdsworth deposed—That she was the wife of John Holdsworth, and had a protection order (produced): Since that order, was -made she had acquired money and property. She had lived at Mr McDonald's, having known his wife for 18 years. - She got McDonald toi fill in a cheque for £ 10, and she lent it to him to buy calico to make tents when hes was going to Ohinemuri.; He got the money from the'bank^and witness never saw it again. His wife was present—no one else.; The cheqjie for £20 (produced). McDonald drew out and" witness signed. He: got the money from the bank and gave it to w^toess.;, She got it.to send for her little boy",from, r< Ehgland.r She went to Auckland with £5, .and Mrs McDonald •sked her to lend it to her husband to pay for a load of timber to make an addition to the house. She agreed, and McDonald made use of the £10. She bad sppkcn to McDonald one Saturday night about the £20, and he said he thought they were about square for her (witness 1) staying there. Before that witness offered to pay for her board, and Mrs McDonald said did she "want to insult her; and witness said no.

Cross-examined by Mr Macdonald— There was no unpleasantness on the Saturday night except that Mrs McDonald bullied witness. There was a young gentleman, knocked at the door one Saturday night; Mr McDonald didn't likeit,.and so she left. . ._ - Re-examined by Mr Tyler—-She had given Mrs McDonald a number of things, a list of which was that prdduced. By the Court —I gave him the £10 to get calico for making tents ready for Ohinemuri. ;, : ......,__., 5,..~.,i .... : ...- . ?;TBia r was plaintiff's case. Susannah McDonald deposed — That she was wife of defendant. Mrs Holdsworth stopped in her husband's house for a long time. She received £10 from Mrs Hdldsflrorth-iinUpart; payment for her board. She received another sum of £10 for the same purpose, She wanted witness to send the bill up to a gentleman in Grahamstown (Plantiff: it is not true ; itis.false). t Witness refused. . Cross-examined by Mr Tyler—There was an agreement for plaintiff to pay; 10s per week, when Mrs Holdsworth came to lire with witness. She didn't stay regularly but came and went. Sometimes slier assisted .witness; ;:■■ Never gave her a bill for board, nor asked her,ijfor; payment^. When^ she went witness didn't ask her for the balance, but told-her she would nave to pay it. These two sums of money were all the moneys she received.; She never .rasped 10s or £4 4s to pay a bill to Wilson. -Mrs-Holds worth "didn't give the money to pay the latter. She never got any sums of £2 or £1. Plaintiff had a bedstead, but no other furniture. (Witness denied having received a number of articles enumerated by plaintiff in her evidence.) Mrs Holdsworth never paid £2 to Mr Honiss onwitness 1 account. She made a present of a pair of boots to one ehilcl, and a pair, of earrings tb ariother child. ' .■

Mr Tyler wished to.recall plaidti^as lie had: been taken by surprisjebyV something alleged by defendant's Wife. ...; .- The Court didn't think* it 'worth while, and nonsuited, plaintiff. 1' X" Mr Honiss or Mr Wilson 1 were, jpresent (the Court said) to corroborate';plaintifF?s J statement regarding payment of those accounts the" case - might' "be "different. Costs £1163,. „, ,/..>, :/ .._:;l;^;.;. ,;,,,- Court adjourned. v v ".[:/ ' ;