RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VII, Issue 385, 26 August 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before E. H. Carew, Esq., X.M:) JTihvay, 21st August. Meyer v. O'Leary. — The defendant ha» been absent from Lawrence fpr some months. The summons wiis served by leaving it at hia residence in tlie neighborhood of Lawrence — » " his usual place or abode." His Worship said the service was not sufficient, and that when a man was absent so long a time, it was not enough to serve the summons m this way. A new summons might be issued without further expeuse. Harris r. Cahill.'— Claim of £55 on a bill of exchange, reduce I to £50 to bring it withiuv the jurisdiction oF the Court. Mr. Copland for the- defendant. Fleas r Not indebted j no consideration ; and that; the bill was an accommodation bill. Objection was also taken to the bill of particulars, no drawer's name being on the copy o£ tho bill. Jame& Harris proved that lie was the bolder of the bill, aud also- the drawer ; that it was a renewal of a former bill, given for good consideration ; that it was accepted by the defendant, presented and dishonored. Mr. Copland, in opening the defence, said that part of the bill was for an illegal consideration — that is to say, spirituous liquor, sold in less quantity than 20s. at a time. Ho> also referred to other topics at considerable* length. James Cahill said thai he had dealt with. Harris for years-. This bill was originally under £16, and he had paid over £200 on ifc since. He was not in Harris' debt, but Harris. was in his. Evidence was educed from thii witnesses at considerable length by Mr. Copland, but little of it appeared to be material. Mr. Cahill gave evidence, in some degree, corroborating that of James Cahill. Mr, M'Coy said that illegality of consideration must be specially pleaded, so must payment; neither had been pleaded by his learned friend, and therefore no advantage could be taken of the evidence given on these points, even if they had beon pleaded properly, the evidence was not sufficient to prove pleas. As to the pleas pleaded — " not indebted," "n&consideration," and " that the bill is an accommodation one." The production of the bill was a sufficient answer to* the first plea, which only denied the arising of thecause of action. '• No consideration" is an improper plea, as. the particular reason of the* absence of consideration should be shown,. As for the hist plea, it was sufficiently shown, that the bill vras not an accommodation bill. Judgment coserved. Tuesday, 25th August. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq. r R.M.) Harris v. Cahill'. — His Worship- delivered judgement 'in this case as follows.-— The* plantiff as drawer and holder of a bill o£ exchange sues defendant as the drawee and acceptor. The amount of the bill is £55, but this sum has been reduced to £50 to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Court. The defendant pleaded not indebted no consideration and that- the bill was accepted for the plaintiff's accommodation. The evidence for plantiff proved the signatures to the bill and that it had not been paid, and on Crossexamination the'plaintiff gave evidence that the bill was given partly for a dishonoured bill and partly for the price of goods which together made up the amount, fhe defence wa3 of a rambling natare, and a large number of papers were put in evidence which have not been connected with or proved to. have any bearing on the case. It has been attempted to show that the plaintiff has fraudulently imposed upon defendent time after time for the last three years", and principally by those means the bill has reached its present amount ; "but the. defendant's evidence was given in a reckless manner., was contradictory in itself and: of the papersproduced for the defence,, and he has not proved the assertion. Another point-raised for the defendant was that' the consideration, for the bill was in part illegal, as it included the price cf spirits supplied in less quantities than 20s worth at one time. The question:, was not properly raised under either of de-^ fendant's pleas, and the evidence did not prove that any such item was included ia the bill sued upon. The defendant has* sworn that h& paid £15 on account of • thia bill a few weeks ago ; the pkintiff admita having received HQs only ; and after consid-. eration of the whole of the evidence oa_ this point I consider fee plaintiff's as the^ most reliable. Judgment for £50 — with c<£te ,c^CQwt2§s^aa4-pfof«s*oo^(w*iß^fc.

Williamson r. Xtissell.— Claim&l ss. Paid by telegram after the case was called on. McCarthy r. Kitching. — Adjourned for four wtekt. Harris f. O'Leary. — Summons not served, a new one to issue free of expense. Harris v. Bowdley.— Claim of £1 17s Id amount confessed, the defendant said that the ■•verity of the weather prevented him from working at his trade. Judgment for the amount and 9s costs of Court. Williamson v. Russell. — Claim of £20 on promissory note dishonoured ; there was also a second case for £40 on a dishonoured bill of exchange Mr. Copland for the plaintiff, Mr. M'Coy for the defendant. There was no real defence; the defendant's counsel showed that there waa some understanding as to time being given. Judgment for the amounts claimed with 25s costs of Court, and 20s professional costs in each case. Execution not to issue for two months.