R.M. COURT, MASTERTON.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 2, Issue 90, 21 February 1879, Page 2

R.M. COURT, MASTERTON.

TIIIUiSDAY, FEMUUKY 20,

(Before H. S. Wardeil, Esq., R.M., and C, A. Yallancc, Esq,, J.P.)

0, Jacobscn, a Scandinavian, was fined 10: i and costs, 9a, with os expenses of witness, for permitting a chimney of his house in Chapel-street to catch fire- The prosecutor was the Inspector of Nuisances. P. J. Murtagh v. A. Falloon.—Charge of assault and unlawfully wounding on the 23rd January, lit Bunny for defendant.

Plaintiff applied for the case to bo adjourned till March 3, at Featherston, as two other cases between the same parties were appointed for that date—one for forcible entry of disputed promises and another for illegal impounding. Application agreed to on defendant paying costs for day. Caselberg v. Braggins.--■Judgment summons, Mr Bunny for plaintiff. The Court said that without plaintiff could show that the defendant had been in a position to satisfy the judgment of the Court, the plaintiff would have to pay the costs of the application, as the Court considered judgment summonses were used for purposes which were not intended by the Act.

Mv Bunny stilted that the plaintiff was unable to attend that day, and asked for an adjournment. The Court granted the adjournment conditionally on plaintiff paying 5s for defendant's expenses. Mr Bunny: Your Worship, I won't pay that. The Court: Then the case i 3 dismissed. M, Cbelbevg v. John Lane—Judgment summons, £ls Os Bd. Mr Bunny for plaintiff. Defendant said that lie had had the money, but had other people to pay. Order made for money to he paid within two months, or in default 28 days' imprisonment. .

M. Casclberg v. Charles White.—Judgment summons, £27 2s lOd, Mv Bunny for plaintiff. Defendant admitted that he had been in regular employment at 7s per day, and had no family. Defendant ordered to pay by monthly instalments of £3, or in default of any one payment, 14 days' imprisonment, JIUKTACtII v. TAIT, Civil Cita. This was an action brought to recover possession of of a horse alleged by plaintiff to be his property, or the. value of tho same £25 and damages for its detention £O. Tho plaintiff conducted his own case. Mr Bunny appeared for the defendant, and upon his application, all witnesses in tho case were ordered out of Court. The plaintiff having been sworn, deposed Ho had bought tho gelding, tho subject of tho present action, from defendant among a lot of four horses, for which he had paid defendants full demand, He had received possession of the gelding, but it was now in the hands of defendant. He had never given defendant authority to take possession of it. The value of the gelding was £25, which amount of the gelding he now claimed, in addition to £5 damages for the wrongful detention since the 20th January last. Cross-examined by Mr Bunny: he had paid for the horse on the 18th November. He never in his life agreed to enter into partnership with the defendant. He agreed to purchase from tho defendant a portion of his property (namely) i of his interest in f acre part of Town Section No. 72, and in 11 acres on the Upper Plain, Ho had written out an agreement, which had been signed by tho defendant and a witness. He had also paid £lO by cheque on account of the purchase, a receipt for which™ embodied in the agreement. He held the agreement from the 30th September to tho 18th November, but did not know in whose possession it now was, or what had become of it. On the 18th November tho agreement was in a pocket book in the pocket of a coat of his hanging in the kitchen of his (the plaintiff's) house, when defendant in company with Messrs Falloon and Clayson came to the house. That visit resulted in the assault as to which the proceedings had already been taken, He (the plaintiff) was taken to the Police Station, tho pocket book being in the pocket of his coat hanging up as already described, at the time. On tho afternoon of the following day, ho returned to his house, when lie saf the coat still hanging up, but found that the pocket book and other things were gone. , He had since made diligent search for tho missing agreement but without avail, He had apdefendant for the document, but H&sd having it. He could -give the fi&Grait word for word from memory.

-Tlio plaintiff then proceeded to givo tiie exact words of the agreement as follows: " 30th

"I Philip. John Murtagh have this day bought of George- Tait, one-half interest in the following, that is to say—§ aero, part of section No' 72 in. the" township of Masterton, together with tho buildings erected thereon; also, one-half interest in eleven acres oil the Uppor Plain road, with the cottage erected thereon. One-half the interest in all furniture; beds, bedding, and so forth in tho house on tho'threequarter acre, known as Taifc's Boarding House; also one-half interest in four horses—l chestnut, known as" Outcast," 1 dark roan, 1 gray colt, 1 dark bay filly, running at present on Morrison's run; 1 dray and harness, 1 spring trap and harness, o saddles and bridles." [An inventory of tilings then in the house followed.] " P. J. Murtagh to occupy tho house on thrco-quarter acre, and George Tait to occupy tho house ,on the eleven acres. Either party to pay no rent to the other." Plaintiff continued : He was positive that was the exact wording of the agreement. (Ho afterwards saicf lie had omitted to mention that the words, "For £2OO sterling" concluded the agreement.) The agreement was signed "George Tait" across a shilling stamp, and by a clerk of the Bank of New Zealand as a witness, A receipt for the £lO was at the foot of the agreement and was also signed by Tait. In further cross-examination the plaintiff said ho would swear that the words lie had given were" true and correct as they had appeared in the agreement" to-the best of his knowledge and belief. He had paid the £lO on account, and had since paid defendant's then solicitor (Mr W. G. Beard) a cheque for £l9O. Ho did not givo the cheque to hold for him (the plaintifi), but on account of defendant. The cheque was filled in by Mr Beard, himself who at tiie plaintiff's request added the words "on Tait's account. Tho cheque had been paid and charged to plaintiff's account.. Beyond the agreement he made no terms with defendant. He had not agreed to erect a Tattersall's. Such an intention might have been in: his mind, but he never told defendant ho would do so. He nevet' said lie would spend £6OO on the property. Tho Court at this stage enquired of ■Counsel if the present lino of cross-exami-nation were relevant 1

Mr Bur,ny said that even us tlio caae now stood ho should be justified in applying for a non-suit. The plaintiff said Mv Bunny had better travel a little further; if lie got to the 18th of November lio would .find very material facts,

In reply to the Court the plaintiff admitted that he did not found his claim to the. horse on the agreement ho had detailed, Cross-examination continued: On the 18th November he had entered' into another agreement with the defendant. That agreement was lost on the same date as the previous one, namely on the 23rd November,

The Court pointed out that tlio plaintiff had previously deposed that ho had lost the Ist agreement on the 18th November. The plaintiff stated that that was a mistake ; the '23 rd November was the correct date.

Cross examination (continued). He had a copy of the Agreement which he had made from memory immediately after the documents were missing. The words of the second agreement were as follows. November 18th 1878.

I Philip John Murtagh have this day bought of George Tait the whole of his interest in the following (that is to, say) | acre part of section No 72 in the Township of Masterion, together with the buildings erected thereon. Alse 11 acres on the Upper Plain Road and the cottage erected thereon. For the sum of £2OO paid in full by cheque. He read tlio agreement over to the defendant in the presence of witness, Mr Bunny asked plaintiff how it was he remembered the agreement word by word. The plaintiff replied that he had a good memory.

Tho Court was then adjourned to two o'clock.

On the Court resuming Tho KM. intimated that one of the witnesses was waiting to start a brake to Tenui, and if Counsel saw no objection, his evidence might be taken at once, Mr Bunny not objecting, George Burslem was then called, and examined by the plaintiff. He deposed— That he was a coach-driver living at Tenui; he remembered being at plaintiff's house on the loth Nov.; defendant was then present; witness had gone to get some money from the defendant; when lie went in the parfa were signing documents, and he to asked to sign as a witness; he wished to know what he was to sign ; the agreement was then read over to him aloud, and he also read it himself ; the agreement was then signed ; he saw Taifc sign it; it was read over after the signing ; Tait then received a cheque from plaintiff; plaintiff told defendant to go to the Bank; defendant went out, and coming back paid witness £2 out of it; I don't remember if plaintiff asked defendant any questions; I saw defendant sign two papers; I signed two myself; botli papers were read by plaintiff, and also by myself. At this stage Mr Bunny , asked if tho name of Mr Bassett were in the list of witnesses ordered out of Court. The R,M, said it did so appear. Mr Bunny pointed out that tho witness was present in Court. A slight altercation ensued between plaintiff and Counsel, when the R.M. pointed out that if the witness in question were present, his evidence would be inadmissable.

Plaintiff asked witness—Did I say "Is that right, Tait!" Witness—" Yes." Mr Bunny objected to this as a leading question, and the Court ruled the question inadmissible. Examination continued—The terms of the agreement as he remembered tlicni were that Tait handed over nil his property to Murtagli for £IOO, and also his horses, carts, traps, and fowls for £SO. - Cross-examined by Mr Bunny—Witness did not know how long he remained in the room ; it might have been a quarter-of-an-hour; he could not swear how long it was | he could swear that it was more than five minutes; when lie went in the first thing lie did was to sit down; he then occupied himself by looking at tho pictures on the wall while the parties were engaged in waiting. He. could swear he saw defendant sign ; he saw, defendant sign before plaintiff asked him (witness) to act as witness; he did not know if the agreement was-read over before defendant signed ; he did not remember if the number of houses were mentioned in the agreement; he believed all the horses were described, but could not swear ; he saw the cheque given, but did not know for what amount; he did not know if the ..documents were agreements or receipts ; ;he did not notice the stamps, ■ ■ . ■ ' • At this point there was some delay caused by plaintiff wishing to put a quesstion to witness, but not being able to frame it so wo avoid a leading question, / ■ - •

Ultimately plaintiff submitted the question in writing to tl>o Court, by whom, it was referred to Mr Bunny, who objected to it. . ■

In reply to tho. Court, the witness then stated that the LSO was to be in full payment of tho horses, carts, harness, etc., mentioned in the second document.

Plaintiff (re-called), said, in reply to the Court: I read tho agreements oy;er in tho presence of tho defendant, Burslem, and Bassett.

Cross-examination of plaintiff continued : He gave a cheque for L2O 011 the same day. That was tho balance of the LSO to be given for tho horses, traps, furniture, etc. Outcast was included among the horses. Ho had placed no value on the horse.

The 11M. here addressing the plaintiff, who had become somewhat loose and flippant in his replies to counsel, said 110 must bo more careful how he behaved in the box. If he felt himself unfairly treated by counsell, he must rely on the protection of the Court. 011 a previous occation he had been severely reprimanded by the Court, mtd he had seen in what position his conduct had that day placed the Court.

The plaintiff promised to bo more circumspect.

Cross-examination continued ; He now valued the horse at LIOO in consequence of his action, but when lie bought the property 110 had not taken the value into account. To the best of his belief lis had not sworn at the (supreme Court that the house was not worth LfiO. He did not value the dark roan at more thanLG. He valued tli'e grey colt above all the others. He had never received the other horse. The grey colt was not broken in at the time. He had put no valuo on the other articles, He had been offered M for tho trap and harness. JHe had exchanged the cart for a cow, which was worth L 6. He was was willing to sell tho three saddles to Mr Bunny for Li if he wanted a spec. When 110 bought the furniture ho valued it, per inventory, at LGO. But 011 the 18th November what was left was not worth L 5. A great many things had been removed in the meantime. Defendant had never told him the 'transaction was a swindlo. Ho did not say at the Supremo Court that defendant had used that expression to him, It had never been said that he was to expend LIOOO 011 the property: He' had agreed with the Trustees to erect a building of that cost within eighteen months, He had not promised defendant half of the profit arising out of the building. He had not,-said so at tho Supreme Court.

After most searching interrogations from the Court, the, plaintiff said he could not swear as to the matter one way or the other.

Defendant had told the Trustees that the transaction was a fraud, and the Trustees had refused to carry out the matter. At this point an argument took place between the R.M. and counsel as to tho line of cross-examination which was being followed, the 11M. being of opinion that the question of disputed .ownership of the land was foreign to the matter, and counsel contended that it had a direct bearing 011 the case.

The whole of this portion' of the crossexamination was. interspersed by numerous lively sallies between the plaintiff and Counsel, the plaintiff declining to confine himself to tho questions asked of him.

Cross-examination continued : It was not part of the arrangement that a private deed of partnership was to bo made between him and the defendant; tho £2OO was paid to Mr Beard for the half-interest, the other half-interest was given to him for nothing ; lie had given the defendant nothing whatever for the remaining halfinterest ; for the whole of defendant's interest in his landed estate I paid £2OO, and the remaining £5Ol paid for his persona! property. (This information was elicited from the plaintiff with enormous difficulty by the Court, the plaintiff indulging in very voluble digressions, and fighting shy of the point,) The whole of the £220 had been paid by him; Mr Beard was instructed to prepare a deed.

An argument between the Court and Counsel here ensued, with regard to the admissibility of the evidence.

The plaintiff continued : He gave 110 instructions to Mr Beard himself; the £250 had been paid thus: £lO cheque to defendant'; £l9O cheque to Mr Beard; £lO cash advanced to defendant in Oct., and afterwards taken in part payment; .£2O cash at the end of Oct. paid to defendant ; £2O cheque 01118 th Nov. The receipt of the first cheque for £lO, and of tlmt for £2O ivas admitted by the defendant; the other payments weredenied.

■The plaintiff continued : Ho wrote the documents of the 18th • November; the £lO advanced in October was paid in one pound notes ; the £2O was paid in two ten pound notes; he had taken receipts for those two sums; the receipts hod been stolen from him ; the receipts had been seen by another party, who could be produced (is a witness. (Plaintiff hero handed up the witnesses name in writing to the Bench,) A discussion here arose between the Court and Counsel as to the right of tlio latter to see the name, the Court ultimately ruling that Counsel was entitled to cross-examine on the point. The plaintiff then admitted, in reply to Mr Bunny, that Mrllenall was the person who had seen the receipts. In reply to the Court; The receipts were in his own possession when seen by Mrßenall.; the date was before the assault took place. The plaintiff was proceeding to call his next witness, lit Bassett, when theRM. said ho would now hear Mr' Bunny's objection to lu3 receiving the evidence of that witness!

Mr Bunny affirmed that the witness in question had been within the porch of the. Court during the examination of the plaintiff. Mr Bassett was then called, and in reply to the Court asserted that, although for a short time he had been within the porch, lie had not heard one single word that had taken place; ho was hard of hearing. . The Court adjourned for five minutes to allow Counsel the opportunity of bringing forward evidence on the point. On the Court resuming The R.M., addressing the plaintiff, said lie understood the plaintiff had been seen since the adjournment in conversation with two of the witnesses who had not yet been examined. .

The plaintiff admitted the fact,' but said lie did not know ho was doing wrong. The Court had not prohibited his doing so,' The R.M. then pointed out to the witness Bassett that he should have to inflict a penalty upon him for his contempt. He would, however, first receive any explanation from the witness. Mr Bassett had nothing to urge in extenuation, • . ■

The Court then imposed a penalty, of 12, or in default 24 hours' imprisonment. Mr Bunny again brought the'conduct of thQ plaintiff under the notice of the Court, the R,M. then eliciting from him a solemn assurance that he had .not' con-

versed -with' witnesses on;the' subject** the present proceedings, . ; ' : H •Before proceeding with the case tluß| R.M..commented upon: the absence Vow proper nccommodfition for witnesses orflj dered out. of Court,-and of the mc-oiiveJß nient arrangements generally. *v. 9| ' Wm, Bassett was then sworn, and'de-H posed that he now resided at Petoiie, bu.tH was a resident in Masterton on the 18tl»B November, when he was .requested-byW plaintiff to go into his Jiouse to act as; a B witness, He was present wh 8n - plaintiff™ drew out the two agreements. ~,(TheAritH ness then fully detailed the agreements asH already given by plaintiff in his evidence.) ■ Plaintiff read the agreement and asked:! defendant if it were right, and said it was all right-. Witness and Ohmm man signed as witnesses.- Did> the name of the'other witness. Hefflß plaintiff writing the agreements. DefßW ant and plaintiff's boy were also preJ|H Did not know the horses except O'jHH who was now called Harkaway, BeMH On commencing his Mr Bunny asked witness how it«HH9 remembered tho contents of the SHm incut so well! JißmH! The witness said that. Mr put the same' question to MurtaHnH was about to proceed in a veiflßHH manner, when : HbHH Mr Bunny and the Court F°' i that the witness had said lie had anything that had been said. . ISgHH The plaintiff attempted to the inconsistency, and a highly scene occurred, in the course' pf wIIHHHI witness got considerably " mixed uH|H Cross-examination continued: -S9KE& read the receipts to-day, Did riowHS| where they were now Had writtflHH| receipts himself. What he hadreadHMH was the names of the horses. - written those names himself. (iSBHE stage the witness's prevarication wMS9 causoof considerable amusement. hHB last and only time he had seeri tIieHSE ments wa3 011 the 18th November.' MBW ncss then gave the wording of : fcliejagreements again, with variations.) Had not ' heard Murtagh repeat the agreements to-, day. Had not heard Murtagh recite the fc words of the agreements since tho 18th of > November. . , -. 1 . 111 reply to the Court, witness ratera-'.' ted his last assertion, and wished the' Court to understand lie retained a perfect 1. recollection of the documents' from his. .

first perusal of them on the 18th Novem-i ber. He was not connected in business I with the plaintiff. ~ j ' A highly ludicrous debate ensued-as';ib | ( the relationship (if any) the witness and the piaifißßH«H wife's grandmother the miHSHnHH found. BhSßbSb Mr Ronall,- J.P., was thJBBRHBj deposed he had lio recollectHWßßjHß seen any document, a«reemHHHHB shown to him. by plaintiff. HHH bered on one occasion seeinflnßßHH no document Was oxliibitcd conversation might have received a recipe for sciaticaSHnHH ant of Murtagh's, but that I'HHH Mr Bunny had no desire mine this'witness. ■ - HBBKBHmI Henry Stenson was about «|nHBB 'by the plaintiff,'when Mr Buniiy offered the ;saiAHHH|H and on the same ground as Bassett's testimony, and call(o|HHH Mr Fallobu, who on posed that Stenson was' üBBKWH during plaintiff's cxamiiintiottHHSßHa Stenson ultimately admittcflHß|SH| been in Court for abouttwenty fIHSHHa that was before of Court, Mr was also sworn, aniBBBMp the,evidence of Mr Fallo(H9S ThellM, cnquiied if there was present who had also seen StenscHHß Court. 9SH There was 110 response. : * HH The R.M. then interrogated tho gHH but nothing further was elicited itHji him. BH Percy Cobb was called by Mr BumSH and deposed to having seen the M-'in Court that afternoon. |H

The witness was subjected to a slight]! rambling cross-examination by the plaiil The R.M. intimated that the evideiim of the lad must be received, but it woufi operate to the plaintiffi case; lie would consider the matter pan contempt later. J HS Henry Stenson, jockey, was tllen ined by the plaintiff and deposed as tp9 contents of the agreement, and thetiH saction between the parties, his testiinffl corroborating that of the other witnH for the plaintiff. . H Cross-examined : lie had lioUifiaiitS document repeated since 18th November, Had not heard the agreement recited iri Court by Murtagh. Was in Court when 1 it adjourned at mid-day. Had been in and but of Court before that. Had not been in Court since dinner until now. i This completed the plaintiffs case. ' ! The Court intimated that it would bo 1 willing to resumo the hearing of the case at 8 o'clock if it was the wish of the parties,