THE COURTS.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VI, Issue 291, 28 August 1873, Page 5

THE COURTS.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuesday, 26th August. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M., and Alexander Stewart, Esq., J.P.) Lancaster v. Grundy. — £5 ss. 2d., for a dishonored acceptance. Mr. M'Cny for plaintiff. John Grundy, residing at Havelock, admitted that the signature to the acceptance produced was in his handwriting. Richard Lancaster deposed that the acceptance of defendant produced had not been paid. Defendant admitted his liability for the amount, but pleaded a set-off ; but had not served a legal notice thereof to the plaintiff. Judgment for the amount claimed, with costs of Court, 155. ; professional costs, 21s. Lancaster v. Carr and Willis. — This was an adjourned case from the 15th August, brought to recover the amount of £17 11s. due upon a promisary note for goods supplied by the plaintiff to defendants. Mr. M'Coy for plaintiff ; Mr. Copland for defendant. Mr. Copland, for the defence, pleaded, first, that £10 out of the amount claimed was for spirituous liquors ; secondly, that Hie defendants had not received the consideration ; also that there were three separate suits for the same amounts, and the cause of the action could not be divided. Samuel Willis, one of the defendants, admitted his signature to tho bill produced, and had not paid the amount. Examined by Mr. Copland. — At the time we gave the bill plaintiff said he was short of money, and if we would give him a bill he would put it in the bank. We signed three bills for him, being for £17 Us. each. He also said if we would sign the bills he would not push us for the money. He gave us the paper marked A. About two months ago plaintiff gave us a bill of items (produced) amounting to £45 4s. 2d. There was also an acceptance of Nixon's, our mate, for £10 7s. 7d., from which was to be deducted an amount for goods or labor, which brought the net amount to £52 135., the amount now sued for. Richard Laucaster proved that tho amount Tor wliicTi tlio bill liad been town had not been paid. Cross-examined by Mr. Copland. — There might have been five, or six, or seven pounds paid from time to time. The items charged as "nips" mean spirits. No. 2 represents champaigne, and P.B. signifies pale brandy. The plaintiff observed that defendants had got him on a string, or rather a clothes-line, but had not sufficiently pegged him up. Mr* M'Coy admitted that part of the consideration was for No. 2, P. 8., &c, but only to the extent of some £2. The case was dismissed; the Bench ruling that items for spirits having been admitted as included in the acceptances, these acceptances were void. There were two similar suits between the same parties, but were withdrawn by plaintiff's solicitor. Tang Chv/ng v. John Boss. — Settled out of Court. W. Pine v. A . Sutherland. — Claim for £7, being amount due on purchase of a horse. Mr. Gooday for plaintiff ; Mr. Copland for defendr-nt. W. Pine, sworn, stated that about the 31st July last he exchanged a horse with Sntherland, for which he agreed to give plaintiff £7. He agreed to hand the money to Mrs. Draper, who told witness she had not received the money from Sutherland. Cross-examined by Mr. Copland. — The mare exchanged did not belong to him. He admitted that there was a judgment against him by Mr. Low for £7. He was authorised to sell the mare. W. Draper wa3 present at Rae's hotel in July last, and heard the bargain made between Pine and Sutherland. The latter was to give the money to Mrs. Draper. A. Sutherland admitted giving Mr. Low the sum of £7, to be give to William Pine by him. Cross-examined by Mr. Gooday. — The £7 was a cheque of Mr. Matheson's in favor of W. Pine. He could not tell if j Pine got the money, but was told the money was left at Mr. Low's. James Low deposed that he received a cheque from Matheson on account of Pine. Matheson said at the time he was told by Sutherland to leave it with him (witness) to give to Pine. Had an execution previously against Pine. Received the cheque on the 2nd August. Mr. Thompson, the bailiff, came and took the money away under a distress warrant. Cross-examined by Mr. Gooday. — Witness cashed the cheque on the day he received it. Had no authority from Pine to do so. He applied personally for the distress warrant, and told the bailiff he had money of Pine's. On the 30th July, i Sutherland told witness that he was to pay Pine £7. He told he might as well give him (witness) the money. By the Bench. — Had never been authorised by Pine to receive the £7; Mr. Copland contended that the L 7 being the property of Pine, the bailiff was entitled to levy upon it to satisfy the execution previously obtained by Low against him. Mr. Gooday submitted that there was sufficient evidence to show that Mrs. Draper- was tt> have been the party to whom the money should, be paid, and

quoted Addison on Contracts, p. 940. This had not been done, and his client was entitled to recover. Judgment for the amount claimed, with costs of Court, 16s. : professional costs, 2ls. The case of Thos. Carr and Samuel Willis v. R. Lanciister was adjourned to Tuesday next, on payment of 30s. by defendant to plaintiffs. Also B. Nixon v. Lancaster was adjourned to Tuesday next, on payment of 20s. expenses by defendant to plaintiff. The cast of Thomas Hinde v. Matthew Hay for the recovery of Lls, being the alleged value of certain articles of household furniture sold by defendant, and being the property of one John Reid, who is stated to owe to the plaintiff the sum of Lls, for rent of premises from which the furniture was taken, was adjourned to Tuesday next upon the application of the defendant, whose solicitor was in town. Several cases were settled out of Court.