RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 2, Issue 269, 19 September 1879, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT.

MASTERTON, THURSDAY.

[BEFORE H. S. -WAHDELL, ESQ., R.M.] K Hooker v Bradford.- Mr Bunny for plaintiff, Mr Beard for defendant. This was a claim for £lB, value of a pun left with defendant to be repaired. The defence was that the gun had been returned and was not of the value sued for. John Disher was called, who deposed : lam living at the Taueru. Had often borrowed the gun from Hooker. It was broken while in my possession. I sent it to Bradford for repair, Was generally supposed to be a good gun. Had sent it clown to Masterton by Mr T. Thompson. Had never received any gun from Bradford. T. D. Thompson deposed: Had left a gun of Hooker's with Bradford and had never seen or received it since, E. Bradford deposed : I am a gunsmith residing in Masterton. I remember the gun mentioned by Disher. The gun was not worth 30s. Was surprised anybody fired out of it as it was dangerous.' He had delivered the gun on New Year's Day to two men in a buggy who called at the shop for Dialler's gun. Had since seen Disheivwho on mentioning that he had given it to two men, said " Oh, it must havo been Thompson," Did not know the two men. [Some amusing remarks were here interchanged between the witness and Mr Bunny in reference to the value of the gun.] The prices of guns varied considerably,, The caso was ultimately settled out of court, costs 41s. 0. Brown v RanginuiKingi.— Debt £2 12s. Judgment for amount and costs. 0. Brown v Wi Tinitara-Debt £2lss 2d, Amount and costs to be paid in three weeks' time. Lowes vD. Daniels - —Debt £2. Judgment for amount and costs. W. Hodder v Rudman.-Debt £2l9s Bd. Mr Skipper for plaintiff, Judgment for amount and costs, Hodder v Filburn. -Debt £2l2s, Mr Skipper for olaintiff. Judgment for amount and costs. Hodder vJ. Neilson.—As there was no appearance of either parties, Mi Skipper, who appeared for plaintiff, applied for an adjournment.

Burnett & Yule v G. Tait.-Debt £5 19s MM. Judgment for amount and costs.

Martin v Groves.—Debt £llos. Judgment for amount and costs. Coppins y P, Parsloe.—Debt £1 G3. Judgment by default for amount and costs.

J. Vile vO. Anltotel, jun.—Debt £3Bs. Judgment by default for amount anc

T. K, Yorke v Tawaroa.-Debt £5 18s 3d. Judgment for amount and costs. C. Brown v P. Donnecker.—Judgment summons. Paid into court. A. Coppins v John Souper.—Judgment summons £2 IGs Gd. Order made. H. Bentley v H. Morris,—Judgment summons £7l2s Bd. Order made. Williams & Co. v Patangaroa.—Debt £slßs 3d. Mr Skipper for plaintiff. Adjourned to Oth October. G. Torre vH. Percy,-Debt £1417s Gd. Amount paid into court. S. Kibblewhite vG. Young.—Debt £4 10s 2d. Amount paid into court. J. Ewin-jton v W. Vince.-Debt£3lss. Judgment for £1 IGs and costs. J. Vile v J. Neilson.-Debt £3 5s 2d. Judgment for amount and costs. i. Vile v E. Jeans.-Debt £7 9s Gd. Judgment for £ll2s and 10s costs. In the adjourned case fiom last sitting of Nicholls v G. Russell, judgment was given for defendant, E. Kibblewhite v S. &J. Kibblewhite.— Debt £OS. Mr Beard for plaintiff and Mr Bunny for defendants. E. Kibblewhite, sworn said: I am a blacksmith residing in Masterton. Was a partner in the firm of Kibblewhite Brothers, but sold my share to S & J. Kibblewhite for £l3O, of which I have only received £OS. , They gave me a bill for the balance, which I have bad subsequently to nice', myself, No notice was ever given of James Kibblewhite leaving the firm. Did not know MeDuff was a member of the firm until receiving notice of the ass'gnment a few weeks ago, Had demanded the money from both of them a great many times. Would not have made the agreement had I known James had left the firm. I agreed to accept the cheque of L 57 10s provided they met my bill when due, which was never done. By the Court: I received the cheque on account of the agreement. Had never received anything in consideration of the promissory note from them. When I gave the promissory note my brother Samuel said the firm would meet it when due.

S. Kibblewlute, deposed : I am a member of the firm of Kibblewhite Bros., coachbuilders, of this town. On the 31st August E. Kibblewhite sold his interest in the firm to myself and McDuff for the sum of £l3O, of which we paid £GS in cash, giving an acceptance for the balance. James left the firm about the end of January,

Examined by Mr Bunny : The plaintiff knew of this at the time he gave the promissory note. He also knew who constituted the firm—that James had left the firm. McDuff negotiated the affair. The handwriting in the body of the promissory note is McDuff's; it was endorsed by me. McDuff also drew the cheque, which w\s signed by nior-hurderstood from McDuff, in the-presence of my brother, that the terms were satisfactory to him. The amount due to him (Edward) was L 65, but as he urgently required the money he agreed to take L 57 10s. Edward was aware at tliat time James was not a member of tiie firm, James had never given me authority to endorse the note. When Edward accepted the Lo 1 ? 10s cheque I did not understand it was conditional on our meeting it.

By Mr Beard: James' leaving the firm was not notified to the public. McDuff came into the firm when James left. We had private reosons for not notifying it generally. I was not present at the interview between Edward and McDuff, but was present when he received the cheque. By tho Court: We gave Edward the L 57 lO.s for the balance owing him, J. W. McDuff, sworn, said: I am at present a member of the firm of Kibblewhite Bros. Became one on the 10th of February. I took James Kibblewhite's place in it. Edward Kibblewhite was working at G. Dixon's at the time, and it was in Dixon's shop he and I made the agreement about the L 57 10s. I told him then I was a partner. There was no understanding between us as to the bill being met by the firm. The plaintiff is put down in our assets and liabilities for L 57 10s.

E. Kibblewhite, re-called, in answer to the Court said : McDuff never told me anything about the partnership being changed until after the bill was dishonored.

Judgment was reserved till this mor ing.