R.M. COURT MASTERTON.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 2, Issue 91, 22 February 1879, Page 2

R.M. COURT MASTERTON.

~Tt, ♦ Thursday, Febbdakt 20. (Before H. S. Wardell, Esq., R.M.) . W. Bell, v. P. Cotter junr.—Debt £6 fid. Judgement for amount and cost. T. B; Williams, v. Ohas. Redding.— Debt £4 6a lOd. Mr Skipper for plaintiff, Judgment for amount and cost. T. B. Williams, v. T. Braggins—Debt lGs 7d Mr Skipper for plaintiff, ■ Judgment for amount and cost. M, Caselberg.v, J, Olaysoji—Debt £4 8s 6d, Judgment confessed, •.

Yovke Bros, v. Cornelius Oldham— Debt £lO 100, Mr Board for plaintiff. Judgment fov amount and cost. '. Kibblewhite Bros. v. H. V. Duck.— Debt £49 83, Judgment for amount imd 'cost. '

John Kavanagh v. J. Quain. Judgment summons £lB 19s.

MOKTAOn V. TAIT. Civil Case. ' [Continued from our last.] Mr Bunny addressed the Court for the defenco. He said ho. proposed to show that plaintiffs claip could, ipt. be; sustained, and that defendant had been made the subject of a gross fraud ; that the documents of which so much'had been said were improperly obtained, the plaintiff having represented to defendant that the documents would be used forjko purpose of obtaining an advance fronijpjlp Bank ; that such documents were to be kept secret, and a partnership established between tho parties. Ho would call the defendant to substantiate his ease. .• :„ G. Tait, sworn, deposed : That plaintiff had first of all come from Wellington, 'representing that he intended building a Tattersall's Hotel, and offered him first £3OO and then £2OO for ahalf-sharo in his (defendant's) property, oil the understand-, ing that they wore to be partners in, the concern; that arrangement had. not,been carried out, and he had only received £lO on account of it; plaintiff showed him liis Bank Book, and alleged that ho was a man of property; defondant had frequently re-, quested plaintiff to carry out tho partner-

ship, but had always been put off by tho latter; plaintiff had given Mi' Beard a memorandum which defendant had signed, and instructions were given to Mr Beard to draw up a deed" of partnership ; two or three days before tho 18th Nov. plaintiff camo from town and told him (defendant)

that the license was all right, but that Mr McCarthy, a brewer in Wellington, and tho Bank would not carry out the transaction unless tho property was in Miirtagli's name; defendant demurred for a time, but plaintiff told him not'to be a fool, or the matter must drop; a few .days previous to that plaintiff had taken him to Bassett's, and wanted him to sign a paper transferring the property, to him (Murtagli), but this he declined to do ; ultimately he (defendant) agreed to sign the paper drawn up by plaintiff, on the distinct understanding that the arrangeiiientagreed on was carried out; he had signed two documents, tho condition being that lie was to bo a sleeping partner in the business to the extent 'of a half-share,' such sharo to be secured by a deed' of partner-, ship ; the documents wero written out by the plaintiff; lie did not remember tliem being read over to him ; plaintiff lent him £2O, which ho received by cheqiie; it was distinctly uederstood that that was a loan; dofendant had sold nothing to plaintiff; he had not sold his grey gelding now claimed by plaintiff; ho had attended with- plaintiff before the Town Trust with regard to the transfer; the transfer was not completed, because defendant refused to give him tho deed of partnership.; defendant explained the circumstances to the Trustees, who declined to. make the transfer; defendant withdrew his application for a transfer; he had spoken to Mr Beard about the £l9O, but had not re-

ceived it, Mr Beard declining to pay it until tho matter was settled ; he had never instructed Mr Beard to prepare an assignment of tho whole of his interest in tho property to the plaintiff; he had not received tho ten £1 notes as alleged, nor had he received the two £lO notes as affirmed by plaintiff; defendant had/' broken in the grey gelding himself befOfp the transaction took place; the property included in the second receipt was worth about £150; defendant had given plaintiff notice that he declined to carry .out tho arrangement, and would not acknowledge him as a partner.

Cross-examined by tho plaintiff: Ho had never sold the property to the plaintiff ; he had sold his half-interest on conditions ; the date of the notice was about the lltli of tho present month ; .he remembered on the 11th September agreeing to take plaintiff as his partner in all his property, excepting his own and his wife's paraphernalia. (Tho cross-examination here became very animated,. and equally irrelevant, tho Court at length interposed, enquiring of plaintiff to what end his cross-exaniina-

tion was tending, and the plaintiff reply- • „ ing that ho proposed to show he had been victimised by the defendant; it, was his able wish to vindicate his character, which had been assailed, and that he would do with his last breath; lie cared nothing for his money.) Cross-examination continued : Defendant had no clear recollection of the contents of the first agreement; plaintiff had given £1 to defendant to enable him to pay a man who occupied tho cottages in the bush as a compensation for leaving it, but had not given him £lO, nor had ho asked for that amount; he would swear ho had not given plaintiff a receipt for • £lO : he remembered getting some timber for the purpose of flooring tlfo cottage for himself and his wife to live in.

(Tho plaintiff then continued to crossoxamino the defendant at very considerable length as to minor details of tho transactions, and in reply to a remonstrance from the Court, stated that his object was to show he had been trapped and defrauded by a designing man, Tho Court allowed the cross-examination to proceed,) Cross-oxaniination continued : Defendant would swear Bassett was lying on the sofa in the dining-room when plaintiff called him in ; he might have said to plaintiff, " Murtagh, you've been a good friend to me, and led mo out of difficulties' when my own relatives would not," but he could not swear one way or the other. He could swear ho never made any offer to the plaintiff to sell the whole of the property. He had called plaintiff into his bedroom and requested him to give witness a private' deed of paitnership. Ho had not at that time signed the documonts. He required tho deed to secure himself, He had no particular reason in calling plaintiff into his bedroom rather than speak' to 'him' in presence of ■ tho witnesses. He did notmiaider the witnesses had anything tho transaction. (The plaintiff dwelt upon this portion of the case for a'very long ) time, admitting that it had a' peculiar, fas-

cination for him. The Court ultimately declined to let the cross-examination proceed further in this direction,) In the

bed-room plaintiff had promised to give him the deed of partnership. He did not insist on having the deed at the time, because he felt confidence in the plaintiff. At Mr Beard's office plaintiff had agreed to lend him LSO, to partly liquidate ,111 outstanding mortgage to Mr Francis, Tho amount was lent on "move-

ables." Plaintiff had also volunteered a second loan of LSO some week or two afterwards. He had never received tho LSO. (Tho plaintiff offered to bet the Court " Golconda to a china orange" that the defendant made certain statements which he deme'd.). The cross-examination then dragged its weary length along to half-past ten o'clock) no new facts being'elicited. - The Court to then, adjourned 1 to the next day,,■ ...'

Before the Court rose, Mr Bunny applied that Murtagh might be bound o/er in sureties to keep tlio peace, on the' information of Mr Falloon, Murtagh objected that ho had not been sorvod with the summons until that afternoon, and did not know the contents, Tlio Clerk of the Court then road the information of Arthur Falloon, which charged defendant with exhibiting threats of violence towards him. On the application of defendant all witnesses wero ordered out of Court. TlioßM. intimated that at that advanced hour lie thought it hardly seemly to proceed with tlio testimony in the case. With the consent of counsel, ho would bind over the defendant in his own recognizance for £2O to appear to answor the charge at Wclock to-morrow. Tho CoiMthcn adjourned. awwnaw