THE COURTS.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VI, Issue 296, 2 October 1873, Page 5

THE COURTS.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT, LAWRENCE,

Tuesday, 23rd September. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.) Bastings and Kofoed v. Tlws. Horrigan. — This was an action to recover the sum Ll9 os. 6d. on a dishonored acceptance. Judgment for the amount claimed, with costs, LI 7s. Smith v, Pearson. — This was a case adjourned from last Tuesday to enable the parties to settle the matter by arbitration, but as no arrangement had been made, the case was brought before the Court for decision by the Magistrate. The case occupied a considerable time, and the evidence given on each side was mainly as to the quality of the fence erected by Mrs. Smith, and for which she sought to recover £16 odd, being the half cf-st of fencing 23| chains of a division fence between the properties of the two parties. After giving the case a most patient hearing, hi 3 Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for £10, with costs of Court. Mr. Mouat for plaintiff; Mr. Copland for defendant.

Wednesday, 24th September. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.) Blundell v. Hogg. — This was a suit brought to recover £7 10s. damages done to plaintiff's race by defendant's pigs, which had been running in his paddock injuring the bank of race and stopping the run of water, thereby preventing plaintiff and his mate continuing their work of mining. Plaintiff gave evidence in support of^ his claim. Thomas Peters gave corroborative evidence as to the damage sustained. A. Hogg, the defendant, stated that since the commencement of the month he had seen the plaintiff, who gave him an account for damage done by his pigß to plaintiffs race. Witness proposed to appoint arbitrators to value the damages, but it was not acceded to. Judgment for £2 Bs., with coats of Court, 135., professional costs, 21s. Mr. Mouafc for plaintiff ; Mr. Copland for defendant. - Honeywell v. Lancaster. — This was an interpleader action brought by plaintiff against defendant, who had levied upon property said to belonsc to Carr and Willis, against whom the present defendant had an execution, and had levied upon the property in dispute. Mr. Mouat for plaintiff; Mr. M'Coy for defendant. JoKn Thompson, bailiff, proved distraint ujjon the property of Carr and Willis at the Beaumont. When he made

the 1 levy, he found in possession the present plaintiff and a man named Neville. Inventory of mining plant was here read I by the bailiff. Honeywell handed to witness the document produced, which purports to be a sale of 'certain goods, &c, to Honeywell. Thos. Q. L. Honey well deposed that on Monday, the 14th September, he purchased from Willis for £20, and from Nixon for £16, the property in dispute, namely, a hut, claim, and other things at the Beaumont. Prior to the sale, witness asked Lancaster if he had any objection to the property of Carr and Willis being sold. Cross-examined by Mr. M'Coy. — The agreement of sale was not made on ..Sunday. Had expectation of private means to enable him to meet the bill. Had money to the extent of £1 at the time of the sale. Borrowed some money from a man named Dick, who was in Mr. Lancaster's employ to enable him (witness) to go to the Teviot. Willis is still working in the claim. At the time of purchase by witness, there was a quantity of ground stripped, for which witness agreed to pay the tribute of 2s. 6d. in the £to Carr and Willis. By the Bench.— Gave the bill for the amount with the full intention to meet it, and there was no reservation. Samuel Wiliia remembered having Bold to plaintiff, on the 15th September, a hut, with claim and certain goods and chattels. On Thursday, the 17th, first heard there was a judgment against him. Had not been served with a summons by Mr. Lancaster. Meant to sell the property absolutely to Mr. Honeywell. The bill given by Honeywell is at witness' place, and is made payable at Mr. John Beighton's, Teviot. After signing the agreement, gave the notice produced to Mr. Laucaster of his intention to go on working the claim. Positively swore the agreement was drawn out and signed on Monday, the 15th inst. Neville drew, out the agreement. Benjamin Nixon remembered Monday, the 15th September. Sold Honeywell the share in his claim, and received payment by a bill at 28 days for £16. Did not know at the time of sale that there were any proceedings against them by Mr. Lancaster. Was still livinsj near +he claim, and intended leaving as soon as the stripped ground is worked out. The agreement between Honeywell and Carr and Willis was made on Monday week. Arthur Neville deposed that on Sunday, the 14th September, he heard Mr Honeywell tell Mr. Lancaster he was going to buy Carr and Willis' claim. Lancaster appeared pleased to hear that Willis wa3 going to leave. By Samuel Willis. -The notice to Lancaster about re-working the claim was written before the Monday, and was given because Mr. Lancaster had previously cut the water off. Nixon was to have worked in the claim temporarily for Honeywell. Mr. M'Coy submitted that no valuable consideration had been giveu by Honeywell for the property ; that the vendors having remained in possession after the Bale, was a badge of fraud, and called Richard Lancaster, who deposed that the value of the property seized by the bailiff would be about £15 or £20. Saw Mr. Honeywell previous to the sale, and when he said he could buy out Willis' claim, I advised him to have nothing to do with ifc, as there was a suit pending. Honeywell and Neville previously got rations from witness, and were going to cut flax, but did not do any work. Honeywell wished to borrow 30s. from witness to enable him to pay some £4 which he said he had appropriated from a lodge at the Teviot. They afterwards got 30s. from one Dick, who was working on witness' farm, and wanted also to borrow from another man (Treweek), but witness prevented it. Cross-examined by Mr. Mouat. — After the witnesses Neville and Honeywell got the rations, they would not do any work. All this time the farm servants were able to be and were at work. Had known plaintiff about four months, during which time he was at M'Beaths at the Beaumont, and was in the habit of saying he was expecting money from home. He was working off and on for M'Beath Mr. Mouat handed in a letter from Ingle and Holmes of London, dated in February last, addressed to plaintiff, and purporting to be advice that £50 should be sent to plaintiff. This amount, however, plaintiff subsequently admitted he had received, but expected a further remittance. The witness Honeywell was again called by Mr. Mouat, and denied the correctness of the evidence given by Lancaster. He also swore that he heard Lancaster Bay that he would get Willis off the flat. Had the fullest expectation of getting the money to meet the bills for the claim. Hi 3 Wot ship after retiring for about ten minutes returned, and gave judgment as follows: — I have to determine in this matter whether certain goods seized by the bailiff under a warrant of distress were the goods of Carr and Willis, or whether they had been conveyed to the claimant for good consideration and bona fide, without notice to him that it was done to defeat the claim of Lancaster as creditor of Carr and Willis. The transaction is suspicious in more ways than one. . The manner in which the goods were sold in a lump is in itself suspicious — the men divesting themselves of all their known property. The goods were sold on credit, taking an acceptance for the amount when they seemed to be in great want of money. This certainly raises presumption of fraud ; but I think not sufficiently certain to render the transaction void..' Upon tbe question of the miners' right, I do not think it have any effect upon this matter, which is brought to test whether the property belonged to Carr and Wills, and there is evidence that they had sold to the claimant. Judgment would be for plaintiff, with costs of Court lls. The bailiff was ordered* to give up possession. His Worship would not allow plaintiffs' witnesses expenses, as the case was a very suspicious one.

Thuesday, 25th September. (Before E. Herbert, Esq., J.P.) William Hocking appeared for the third time this week charged with being drunk and incapable, was fined 40s. with the alternative of three days hard labor.

Friday, 26th September. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M)Inspector of Nuisances v. Draper. — For allowing two horses to stray within the town. Fined 20s. and costs of Court 6s. 6d. Inspector of Nuisances v. Dr. Halky. — Was a similar charge for one horse, and a fine of 10*. and costs 6a. 6d. was inflicted. Inspector of Nuisdnces v. R Heritage.— Similarly charged for one horse, and was fined 10s. and costs of Court 6s. 6d., with ss. the expenses of the poundkeeper, who was subpeened to prove the trespass, or in default 3 day's imprisonment. His Worship gave judgment in the case of Harrop v. Sutherland, as follows : The principal points to be first determined in this case are whether plaintiff, in negotiating a loan to the Corporation of Lawrence, was the agent of the defendant, and, if he were, to what remuneration is he entitled. From the evidence of plaintiff, it would appear that he was requested by defendant to take up Corporation bonds on certain conditions, and that after an interview with the Mayor of Lawrence, he sent on the 13th August an offer of a loan of £2000 on certain conditions with regard to the payment of interest and principal to meet the defendants views. The result- of thia* offer was a letter from the Town* Clerk intimating that the Finance Ootninittee would recommend its acceptance. Upon this plaintiff saw defendant, and introduced him to a solicitor, Mr. Copland, who was instructed to see tfiat all was correct before the money was parted with. Further negotiations then take place, as it would appear to satisfy Mr. Copland that matters were in order, to give his client proper security, and the transaction was completed on the 9th September. It is worthy of note that the evidence shows that Mr. Copland required and obtained^ Mr. Harrop's guarantee for Mr. Sutherland's bill of costs before he would undertake the business. The first portion, of this evidence is contradicted by defendant, who says to the effect that the transaction was conducted by Mr. Harrop without his previous consent, but that afterwards he adopted what had been done. The most reasonable interpretation of the evidence on this point is in favor of the plaintiff. It is not alleged by plaintiff that any special rate of remuneration was ever agreed to, but he says defendant told him he should be paid for his trouble. He is under these circumstances entitled to the usual price paid for similar services. Evidence on this point has been given by Mr. Herbert, who, with a long experience in Dunedin, says that the usual rate of negotiating a loan' of this discription is 1 per cent. Another" witness, Mr. Hayes, who has been in business at Lawrence for several years, says that the usual rate obtained by himself in similar loans has been 2 per cent. ; and if any transaction required much trouble, the charge would be 2i per cent. He further aays that, to hia knowledge, plaintiff had a great deal of trouble about thia loan. Mr. Herbert, on the contrary, considers there was not much trouble about it. It will be seen that the evidence of usage is not satisfactory. It i 3 well known that all services are more highly paid on the goldfields than in Dunedin ; and on the other hand, the evidence of one witness of the charges he is accustomed to make upon a goldfields cannot be considered as that of general usage. I must therefore endeavor to fix a reasonable remuneration, to which plaintiff is entitled for negotiating the loan, and this I consider to be the lowest rate named by Mr. Hayes, namely 2 per cent. It appears that plaintiff has received 1 per cent, from the Corporation, and the evidence shows that this was a stipulation by Mr. Harrop, who declined to lend except upon that condition. Evidence has also been given to show that it is not an uncommon local custom for agents to obtain commission from both parties. Mr. Hayes says this is only done by the consent of all parties. Another witness is silent on this point. I can only say that the law is careful of the morata of agents, and does not incline towards their being placed in the way of temptation, and would only countenance transactions of this description when there was clear understanding between agent and principal that it was to be so. In the present case it is clear that plaintiff's principal was aware at least several days before the loan was completed that plaintiff was to receive one per cent, from the Corporation, and that he made no objection to it. It also seems that the agent obtained the consent of the Corporation to all the terms required by defendant. 1 therefore cannot consider that there has been any want of good faith on plaintiff's part, but at the same time I conclude that the sum thus obtained, in the absence of any clear understanding by the parties to the contrary, must be taken as a part of that reasonable remuneration to which plaintiff is entitled for the services performed. Judgment will therefore be for L2O, with costs of Court, 29a. , expenses of witnesses, 315., and professional costs, 21s. Mr. Copland gave notice of his intention to appeal.

Tuesday, 30th September. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.) The Police v. Lewis. — For allowing two horses to stray within the town. Through an informality in the summons, the case was dismissed. Dovonie v, Chun Ah Sum. — Mr Gooday, for plaintiff, asked for an adjournment, which was granted till Friday next. Lancaster v. W. J. Barry. — Suit to recover the sum of L 6 18s. 6d., being the amount with interest on a dishonored promissory note. Mr. M'Uoy for. plaintiff. Verdict for amount claimed, with 25a. costs of Court, and professional costs 2ts. Fitzgerald v. Keith & Another. — This was a suit brought to recover the sum of LSO, being a balance due for work and labor done for defendant upon a contract at Waitahnna in carting gravel. Judgment for LSO, with costs of Court 255. and 2 guineas professional cost. M'Qoldrick v. O'Neil. — This was an action brought to recover the sum of 10s. sd. for goods sold and delivered to plaintiff. The account was disputed by defendant, but judgment, after evidence was given, for 103. and costs of Court 11s. Lancaster v. Lawson. — Mr. M'Coy for plaintiff; Mr. Gooday for defendant. Mr. Gooday asked for an adjournment, on the grounds that the summons had been so recently served, and the defendant j had not had time t«"> subpeene witnesses, | which was granted for one week. ' In the case of Cotton & Henry v.

Riddell, heard on Briday last, the matter was adjourned for 14 days, on the application of Mr. Moi.at, defendant'B solicitor. Mr. Copland had asked and obtaiuted leave to amend the plaint by reducing the claim from L4O to L3O. The applications of Peter Robertson, of Lawrence, and F. Oudaille, of Havelock, for slaughtering licenses were granted.