R. M. COURT, DARGAVILLE.

Wairoa Bell, Volume IV, Issue 159, 19 August 1892, Page 5

R. M. COURT, DARGAVILLE .

Frida y, August 12th. (Before H. W. Bishop Esq., E.M.) CIVIL CASES. M. Corcoran v. IV. Dargavel. —Judgment Summons : Mr McLeod for plaintiff. Defendant was examined as to his means and deposed that since date of judgment (20th May) he had only earned £3 Ss Gd. He was now indebted for his board in Auckland—was out of employment and had no prospects. Case adjourned till next Court day, defendant to make an offer in the meantime. N. A. McLeod , Solicitor v. Charles Dins. — £2 15s. Judgment for plaintiff with costs 21s. Neil McLeod v. Gorin, (£9 13s 2d). Same v. Copedro (£l3 10s Sd). Haynes v. Quirk (£lB 12s). Trounson v. Martin (£4 12s 3d). Thomson v. Sills (£24 10s 4d). Mr McLeod for plaintiff in each case. Judgment for plaintiffs with costs. Brown Campbell and Co. v. John Ross.— Judgment Summons. Mr McLeod for plaintiff. Defendent was ordered to pay full amount, £8 0s 7d, in three months, .or in default four weeks imprisonment. Bi •own Campbell & Co. v. John Stanaway. Judgment Summons. Mr McLeod for plaintiff. Defendant ordered to pay full amount, £4 19s 6d, in three months, or in default three week’s imprisonment. John Thompson v. W Pocklington. Judgment Summons. Mr McLeod for plaintiff. Defendant ordered to pay full amount, £8 10s, by monthly instalments of £1 each. John Thompson v. 11. Haswell. Judgment Summons. Mr McLeod for plaintiff. Defendant ordered to pay full amount, £5 Ss 3d within one month, or in default three weeks’ imprisonment. John Thompson v. John Ross. Claim, £49 for meat supplied. Mr McLeod for plaintiff, Mr Beale for defendant. A small contra account put in by defendant was admitted by plaintiff. Defendant pleaded ‘ Not indebted.’ The plaintiff win examined and proved a contract between himself and defendant for supply of meat at market rates. The meat was supplied from Kopuru butchery The butchery belonged to his (plaintiff’s) wife.

R. Powell, plaintiff’s slaughterman, proved delivery of the meat and produced defendant’s receipts.

Mr Beale moved for a nonsuit on the ground that the butchei’y being the property of Mrs Thompson Mr Thompson could not recover. Mr McLeod replied that a distinct contract between plaintiff and defendant having been proved it was immaterial where the meat came from. His Worship overruled the motion for a nonsuit. The defendant, E. Q. Tattersall, and W. Pocklington were examined for the defence. Judgment for plaintiff for £4O and £4 13s costs. Maru Hone Pa pita v. Hone Mete Rewi. —Mr McLeod for plaintiff, Mr Beale for defendant. Tbe plaintiff claimed that defendant while engaged as storeman and bullock driver for plaintiff, received on plaintiff’s behalf from various sources the sum of £I.OO for which he had not accounted. Plaintiff ad mit.tod that defendant had purchased about £2O of goods and that there was due to him for wages about £3O thus leaving a balance of £SO unaccounted for. Defendant pleaded ‘ Not indebted.’ Plaintiff deposed that he started a store at Opanake in November 1890, removed it, to Kai Iwi in January 1891. Defendant was engaged as storeman and bullock driver. In May sent defendant with £24 worth of gum to Messrs Mitchelson. Defendant said he had used it to pay debts. Plaintiff was afterwards sued for the same debts. Sent defendant to Auckland in J line with £52 worth gum, defendant brought back £2O w orth stores and gave evasive accounts of balance. Sent defendant to Mr Marriner in July with £l6 worth of gum, defendant has not accounted for it. Paid defendant small sums on account of wages. Still owe him £3O. Defendant was next called as a witness for plaintiff and Mr McLeod having obtained leave to treat him as a hostile witness proceeded to cross-examine him. He stated that th. 3 store was owned by a partnership consisting of plaintiff, himself and about a dozen others. He was not storeman for plaintiff but for the partnership. Never received wages. The gum sold to Mitchelson and also that sold to Marriner belonged to the partnership. Tbe gum sold in Auckland was his own, he purchased it from some Europeans on credit and paid after his return with the money he obtained for the gum. Never saw the Europeans before and has not seen them since he paid the money. Had noc said to Mr Marriner that gum sold to him belonged to plaintiff and that he (defendant) had appropriated the proceeds in payment of wages. Te Mira Tukino, Hone Tutere, JViremu Rikihunu ond Ilorato Pamo were examined to show there had been no partnership. Mr. A. O. Black proved that all dealings were carried on in the name of plaintiff. Mr Marriner deposed that after defendant had sold him the gum plaintiff made enquiries. Fie (Mr Marriner) saw defendant about a week afterwards and asked him whose gum it was, defendant answered ‘ Maru Hone Papita’s.’ Witness then asked 1 What have you done with the money ?’ Defendant replied, ‘ Oh, the store was closed so I took the money in payment of my wages.’ [Several witnesses were examined for defence but their evidence broke down under cross-examination. Judgment far plaintiff for £SO and £ls 15s costs. Reno v. Lyons. —Claim £7 17s for rent. Mr McLeod for plaintiff, Mr Beale for defendant. There was practically no defence. Judgment for plaintiff for full amount and £1 12s costs.