RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume XIV, Issue 4621, 26 October 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAY. (Before H. Kenrick, Esq., K.M.) CIVIL SIDE. Judgment fob Plaintiffs.

Wolff v. Maingay.—Claim, £6, for cash lent. Judgment foramouot claimed and costs, 21s 6d.

Brassey v. ilerekuiha.-^Claim £4; for professional services.—The defendant admitted the debt less £2 paid since the summons was issued.—Judgment was given for £2 and 19s costs. Taipari. v. Grant and McEenzje, ejectment summons, was adjourned until the 2nd November.

Marshall,v. Mattiu Poona.—Claim, £11 12s sd, for goods sold, Mr Miller for plaintiff. The defendant admitted his liability to the extent of £11 4s Bd, for which judgment was given with costs, 19s. Marshall v. Hawley,—Claim, £110s lid, for goods sold. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed, and costs, 7s. Judgment Summonss. Hetheringtonv. Hawley.—Claim, £14 13s 6d. The defendant wrote that he could not pay the amount within six months. An order was made that defendant should pay £4 a month until the debt be extinguished, the first payment to be made on the Ist January next. Defended Cases. Ricket v. Hawley.—was adjourned for a week.

Brassey v. Greenville, claim £10 10s, for money paid briHdefdndant's behalf.— -Mr Lush appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Miller for the defendant. —Mr Miller objected to the particulars being insufficient, and the Bench permitted an amend* ment of the bill. To this Mr Miller objected, as it was impossible to amend as requested by plaintiff; the plaint would hare to be struck out, and that would not be an amendment. It was finally agreed to amend the plaint.—Plaintiff called W. S. Gresnvillle, who said he had been engaged in a case in the Warden's Court, and he had consulted a firm of Auckland solicitors, Messrs Hesketh and Richmond; the plaintiff acted as solicitor for defendant at tbeThatnes.—At this stageMr Miller asked that all witnesses be ordered out of Court.—The plaintiff objected to leaving, and the difficulty was got over by plaintiff going into the witness box.—Plaintiff said he had acted for the defendant in a case in the Warden's Court, and it was even* tually appealed against. Mr Greenville had instructed Hesketh and Richmond to send papers through "witness, and that firm asked who was to pay the costs. Mr Greenville bad asked plaintiff to become personally responsible for them, and he did so. Hesketh and Richmond sent 'in their bill for the Bum of £10 10s, which plaintiff paid. Defendant promised to pay this sum, but he had not done so. When witness was leaving the Thames a settle* ment of accounts was attempted and arrived at, to the effect that £15 should be paid for plaintiff's services, and Hesketh and Richmond's charges, £10 10s, were to stand over for a time. Mr Greenville subsequently agreed when in Auckland that he would go and -pay the money to Hesketh and Richmond, but he did not do so. Afterwards wrote stating that if the amount was not paid he should sue for it. The sum had never been disputed. —Cross-examined by Mr Miller: The reason he had not gone on with the appeal was because Mr Greenville had told him not to go on with it until he heard from 'him, and because he was receiving no costs from Mr Greenville.—Mr Miller said that the defendant had never authorised the plaintiff to pay the money sued for. W. S. Greenville deposed that he had employed Mr Brassey in a case in the Warden's Court in which he was interested, and it subsequently went to appeal. Mr Brassey bad gone to Auckland with him, he, the defendant, saw Hesketh and employed him himself, Mr Brassey had nothing to do with it. Mr Hesketh did the work at night, and haaded the case for appeal to defendaatjo the moruiog. Never gave io*

structiona that.tlie appeal should not go on. Received a request from iVXr Brassey to withdraw the appeal, bat did not do so, and never instructed that it should be stopped. Don't know why it has not gone on. Had never been asked for costs in connection with it except for the £1Q 10s. Never requested Mr Brassey to pay that sum or any other to Hesketh and Bichmond, and always paid Court fees himself. Never requested Mr Brassey to become responsible to Hesketh and Bichmond for any debt of his. , .Waa quite^prepared tcypayswiy sum due by him to Hesketh and Richmond. The settlement he had witti the plaintiff (referred to by him) was a final one, and told the plaintiff when paying him up that Hesketh and Bichmond's affair was not Mr Brassey's matter, and he (the defendant) wottld attend to it.—The Bench said the plaintiff had failed to prove that defendant had instructed him to pay ~the sum, and must be nonsuited with costs, £1 9a.

Susan Jamieson t. M. McMahon. — Claim, £2 10s.—Mr Miller appeared for the plaintiff, ancl^ Mr Lush for the defence.—The cause of the action was the alleged detention of a heifer. The case appeared; to be, one pf mistaken identity^ the plaintiff^ believing that the heifer- detained by defendant was hers, while the defendant believed that the animal was his. A son of the plaintiff deposed that he looked after his mother's cattle »t\ Tapin About February last his mother had a cow and a calf about three montbs' old, and in May he saw the same cow and calf. Up to last Saturday saw the calf regularly three or four times a wc:k, and saw it on Saturday without the cow, and tried to drive it; home, but could not. Mr McMahon claimed the calf, when he told him he had a beast belonging to the plaintiff. Had offered the same calf to Mr McMahon for sale some time previously; sold it, but it broke out the* same night, and witness substituted another beast for.it. The, calf is not branded. Gould swear/positively that the calf referred to by him as being now in McMahon's piddock was his mother's property.—A younger son of the plaintiff's said he siw the calf in the defen* dant'syard ; it belonged to his mother. This witness generally corroborated the evidence already given. The husband of the plaintiff deposed to seeing the calf at MeMahon's, and swore that it belonged to bis wife.—For the defence, Michael McMahon, defendant, deposed that he owned a heifer, and had missed it; he was told where it was, and sent for it. The witness Jameson claimed tho calf, but witness said; it was his. The calf was purchased by him from Lowry Brothers. The calf is a red and white one; the plaintiff owns acalf similar tohis heifer. The heifer is about 14 months old, and the calf only ten. —Andrew McMahon deposed that be knew the calf in question, and was sure it was identic-! with the ore his father bought. Jameson had a calf similar to his father's, but its head and neck' was ; a different, shape.—Charles Bennett deposed that he knew both Jameson's and McMahon's calves. Could not swear that the one in dispute was Jameson's, as from the marks and general appearance he thought it was McMahon's. —Jane Goonan identified the calf as the one sold Co McMahon.—Robert Lowiy, the original owner of the calf, swore that the one in questiomwas; identical with the one he sold to McMahon.^His Worships after briefly summing up the evidence, non-suited the j plaintiff with costs, £6 i 14?.

The Court then adjourned.