WAIRARAPA DISTRICT COURT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 9180, 1 September 1908, Page 5

WAIRARAPA DISTRICT COURT.

THIRD DAY'S BUSINESS. CLAIM FOR ALLEGED TRESPASS. The third day's business of the Wairarcpa District Court consisted mainly of the hearing of a ilaim for trespass and conversion. Arthur Henry Hewitt;, settler, of Masterton, claimed from W. J. R»ssiter, of Cross Creek, settler, the sum of £lO5 5s damages for trespass and conversion of plaintiff's property, in the alternative £55 10s money agreed to be paid by the defendant in consideration of plaintiff giving un possession of premises held by defendant, and £SO damages as trespass, and conversion, or as s further alternative £55 5s for breach of agreement, and £SO damages for trespass and conversion. The plaintiff alleged as follows:—That on 14th March last plaintiff purchased from defendant his interest in the barracks boardinghouse at Cross Creek with furniture, stock, etc., for £l7O, paying £55 5s on account thereof, possession being handed over to plaintiff. On the 14th April defendant unlawfully took possession of the place and retained it for his own use. On the 27th April defendant agreed that if plaintiff quitted the premises defendant would repay plaintiff £55 5s 'his deposit) on May 2nd out of purchase money defendant alleged be was to receive from one Jamieson on a repale of the property at £2OO, and with whom he alleged he had a valid contract. Plaintiff vacated the premises accordingly, and afterwards defendant, behind plaintiff's back, absolved Jamieson from his contract, plaintiff therefore claiming the return of his deposit and damages as set forth. Mr P. L. Boilings appeared for plnintiff, and Mr C. A. Pownall, and with him Dr. Trimble, for defendant. The following composed the jury: —J. Candy (foreman\ W. J. Beard, W. H. Denby and Tobias Miller. ■

Arthur Henry Hewitt, plaintiff, in evidence, deposed to paying his deposit for £55 5s in pursuance of an agreement to purchase at £l7O. He took possession of the boardinghouse and remained in possession. A lot of itims included in the agreement were not there, and when the sum of £33 19s was due, en April 14th, he declined to pay it until these items were replaced. On Apiril 18 th defend»nt put a married couple in possession, and said witness had nothing further to do with the business. Witness communicated with the railway Department, and on their sending defendant a memo, he offered to repay.plaintiff his deposit if the latter would withdraw and let a purchaser (Jamieson) come in. Jamieson did not come in, and defendant was still in possession. Cross-examined, witness denied that he promised to sign a partnership agreement to be drawn up by defendant's solicitor, and said that no partnership whatever existed.

J. R. Nicol, auctioneer, gave evidence to the effect that he endeavoured to negotiate a sale between defendant and Jamieson. The latter, however, eventually withdrew,' stating th-it he could not go on with the purchase. W. J. Rossiter, deiendant, in evidence, said that pjaintiff told him he had the cash and his own servants, prior to the first agreement being made. This agreement, which was for a sale at £lB9 4s, was not carried out. It was subsequantly agreed that this agreement should be superseded by a new agreement, by which the plaintiff and defendant were to carry on the business as partners as from April Ist, 1908, plaintiff to pay £94 12s for his half interest. The £39 7s balance due by plaintiff under the new agreement was to be paid upon the execution of a formal interest of partnership, which was to he prenared by witness' solicitor. In pursuance of the proposed agreement the plaintiff and witness thenceforward carried on the business from April 7th. About 13th April witness came to Masterton and got the agreement from his solicitor, and on asking plaintiff to sign the latter refused to do so, saying he was bankrupt. Next day plaintiff left tha place of his own accord, taking his belongings to a house where he was living. After that date he made no attempt to assist in the management, leaving witness in a fix. Witness was perfectly ready and willing to carry out any agreement previously proposed. Witness produced a note signed by the plaintiff for the information of the stationmaster at Cross Creek to the effect that he (plaintiff) had gone out of the business. In cross-exam-ination witness said that the reason he had nut told plaintiff prior to being approached that he would return his deposit if a sale to Jamieson was effected was because plaintiff had not come near him. It wa3 not because the Railway Department sent witness a memo that he held wrongful possession that he did so, in any

case. t . Austin Bewley, solicitor's dent, in the employ of W. G. Beard, deposed to the parties agreeing to sign an agreement for partnership. Charles Weightman, employed at the boarding-house, said plaintiff had told him he (plaintiff) had made a mess of it, and wished t" get out. In cross-examination witness said he heard defendant ou'er plaintiff out of his private Dart of the "barrack's." The evidence, of Harold William Brown, in the employ of Laery and Co., Wellington, was put in by affidavit. Witness said he was pres-

ent at the "squaring-up" of stores! between plaintiff and defendant, on an occasion when witness went to collect money from Hewitt. The latter signed a receipt for stores supposed to be owing by Rossiter to Hewitt. Plaintiff told witness he did not intend taking over the boardinghouse again as it was too much of a contract, and he meant to go farming. He said he was out of the place and looking for a job. I This concluded the evidence, and counsel and His Horror addressed the jury- « Thp jury, after an absence of thirty-five minutes, found tor plaintiff on the allegation of trespass for £lO damages.. Mi Judgment was reserved for legal argument on points of law respecting a contract in the case. BANKRUPTCY BUSINESS. William Henry Wilton, farmer, applied for his discharge. Mr Pow-

nail appeared for applicant. The application was granted. Henry William Clay consented to an application for adjudication by C. A. Pownall. Benjamin Speight applied for his discharge. Bankrupt did not appear, and though his Honor said it was undesirable to bring him from such a long distance as Taranaki, it would lead to great mischief if discharges were made perfunctory matters. The application was adjourned for three months. Charles H. Gayfer, stock dealer, of Carterton, applied for his. discharge. Mr Pownall acted for applicant. The D.O. A. stated that at the first meeting of creditors i,t was decided to hand back to debtor his property, valued at about £SO. This was not confirmed by a subsequent meeting. His Honor said he disapproved < of the class of trading to which bankrupt had been a party, although it might be considejed "good business." He suspended the discharge for twelve months, not as a warning to bankrupt only, but to others. The Bankruptcy Court looked upon suoh trading with disfavour.