RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume XIII, Issue 4361, 22 December 1882, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAY

(Before H. Eenrick, Esq., E.M.)

CIVIL SIDE

Judgments foe Plaintiffs

Joseph Clark, as assigned in the estate of Hewin Bros. v. John Graham ; claim, £3 3d, for goods ; costs, Bs. Joseph Clark, assignee in the estate of Hewin Bros. v. Samuel Martin;, claim, £7 Is 6d, for goods ; costs, 12s Win. Deeble v. Thos. Fyfee; claim, £6 8s 3d, goods; costs, 12s. Thos. Kitching v. R. G. Muuro; claim, £11 Is, for goods: costs, £1 9s 6d. Mr Miller for plaintiff.

Judgment Summons. R.N. Smith v. Hugh Farrelly.— Ad~ journed to January 19th. Defended Cases, d. c. gellion v. j. a. chapman. Claim, £39 16s 9d. Account stated. Mr Miller for plaintiff. The evidence of defendant had been taken in Dunedin, and Mr Miller said it pretty well admitted everything except £12135—5| years' interest—which defendant deposed he never agreed to pay. D. R. Gellion deposed he had dealings with defendant in 1877 and 78. In 1878 had a settlement with defendant, which included everything except £3 7s 6d and interest. Mr Chapman left 400 Nonpareils as security, which were unsaleable. The agreement was 2| per cent, to witness for accommodation and bank interest on the account; this was shown by the settlement. The Piako calls he paid in, selfdefence, as the shares were in witness' name.

His Worship said that the settlement showed that plaintiff had/paid calls for defendant; the settlement also showed interest had been paid and there was plaintiff's\ testimony as to a specific agreement. Judgment for amount; cost £4 9s. WM. CUXPITT V. C. V. MITCHELL. Claim £20 13s 6d; goods. Mr Miller for plaintiff. Defendant pleaded the'statute of limila tion for portion of the account and payment, for the-rest. The majority of the goods came into that slough of despond, James Mackay's transaction. Wm. Culpitt, saddler, Shortland.deposed lie supplied defendant with the "articles in the account to Mr Mitchell at Ohinemuri. . Mr Mitchell paid on December 24th,-.. 1576, £5; also on June Ist, 1879, £5/; find on November sth same year £5. Some eight months ago he and defendant agreed upon a balance of £17 11s 6d, and defendant offered togivea P.N. for the amount. Witness said he would take his word for it, which was just as good, His Worship ruled that the payment on account barred the plea of the statute of limitation.

Defendant deposed that to the best of his knowledge he nevar authorised Hati Paka to get any goods on his behalf. His Worship, in giving judgment, said there was an amount of £10 Is 6d for harness, which had been bought from defendant and used a short time by Mr Mitchell, and returned by him to plaintiff for sale. Mr Culpitt said he, returned these as he could not do anything with them; but Mr Mitchell states he never received tljem back. It was cleat that the goods had been bought in the first instance, therefore plaintiff was . entitled to payment for them. As Mr Mitchell had not put in a set off-with regard to them, he must assume the amount was all due, and if the goods had not been returned to him by Mr Culpitt, he could bring an action to recover their value. Mr Culpitt swore positively that Hati Paka had given him an order from Mr Mitehell for goods amounting to £3 Is 6d, and Mr Mitchell declined to swear positively that he had not given the order, therefore he must take plaintiff's version; but from that £2 was paid. This reduced the amount due to £18 13s 6d, but h« presumed plaintiff would accept judgment for the

sum he stated had been agreed upon between the parties, viz., £17 11s 6d. Mr Miller agreed to accept £17 11s 6d. Mr Mitchell asked if the Bench would carry out the other part of the agreement —give time. His Worship said there would require to be a very strong case made out. Mr Mitchell replied he had a strong case. He was endeavoring 'to obtain payment of a large amount due him by the Colonial Government, and also to get an immediate sub-division of certain lands in which he was interested.

His Worship remarked these might be very satisfactory reasons to Mr Mitchell, but scarcely so to Mr Culpitt, who had waited for his money five or six years. Judgment for £17 Us 6d ; costs, £3 7s 6d. ; C. H. BTEWABD V. P. TBEMBATH. Claim, 10s, commission on sale of piano. Plaintiff deposed that defendant offered to give him £3 if he found him a customer for a piano at £40. He sold it te Mr Hopkins, and defendant, objecting to give £3 witness reduced the charge to 5 per cent, viz, £2. Had been paid 30s. F. Trembath deposed that he had plaintiff in to look at the piano, and promised him a good day's work if he sold it. , Sold the piano to Mr Hopkins. Mr Hopkins gave a cheque as a deposit for £21, £1 of which he said was to be ... handed to Mr Stewart for his trouble. 7*T. Gave plaintiff £1 10, which he thought was a good day's work. Plaintiff denied having^received the £1 mentioned by the defendant, stating he received £1 from Mr Hopkins, in a bus, for tuning the piano. . . Plaintiff nonsuited.