R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VII, Issue 1934, 9 March 1885, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON-MONDAY. (Before H. S. Wakdell, R,M.) Ingram v Duncan McLachlan.—breach of Borough By-laws, riding on a foothpath at Kuripuni. Fined.Ss and 7s costs. T. McMhoinvThomasSewell.—Fraud as bailee, Mr Beard for defendant. Informant deposed that he was a laborer residing at Mr Meredith's. On the 26th of January defendant got the loan of his horse, saddle, and bridle. The same evening defendant said that he could not return the horse as it fell lame, and he had to leave it in a paddock at Carterton. He promised to return thehorso during the week. On February Ist witness went to Carterton, but Mr Hodgins,':in ; whose, paddock the horse was, would not release the animal. He valued the horse at £l2. He never authorised the accused or any other person to dispose of the horse. To Mr Board : Had frequently lent accused the horse. They had.. been on friendly terms, Did not often get tight! They had a glass or two together the evening before the horse was borrowed. Accused sometimes drank freely. ' When he returned from Carterton he appeared to have been drunk but was sensible. He did not. say that monoy was owing at Hodgins' on the horse. Sewell did-not say himself that he sold the horse down at Carterton when he was drunk. . Mrs' Sewell told witness subsequently that Sewell hadsold the horse. Witness told Mrs Sewell; that he was willing to take the value of tlie horse. Did not think Sewell wpuld have sold the horse if he had been sober. He would be satisfied with getting his money for; his horse. The Sergeant of Police. did' not. tell : him that he was liable to along term of imprisonment if he withdrew tho charge. : To the Court: The money had"been offered to him to be paid in a months time but he did not'know whether the law would allow him to take it. The Sergeant said the accused was arrested in Woodville and was evidently about to leave the district. H. Hodgins, hotel keeper, Carterton, deposed that ho bought a horse, saddle and bridle from the accused for £lO 10s.; Receipt produced was given to witness by the acouaed. It was inDrHildebrand's writing, The acoused offered the horse for sale, To Mr Beard; It was on Sunday that he took the receipt. He would not swear that it was not on the Monday that he obtained it. The accused waf at his house and asked Dr Hildebrand to write out the receipt for him. Mr Beard: Did' the accused write " Thomas" on the Sunday and " Sewell" on the Monday? Witness; I cannot say. Mr Beard: Is not the name Thomas written with a different colored ink to the ijame Sewe)). Witness; It looks so (to the Court) He paid for the horse with ten one pound notes and a half sovereign. The Court commented on the extraordinary proceeding at the Hotel on the Sunday when the transaction was completed, It dismissed the information as McMahon said he believed there was no felonious intention, Wjckerson & Wagland v Charles Phillis. £2 8s 4d. Judgment for amount andoosts. . Payton v H. Stewart.-Debt £3 10s. Judgment for amount and costs. ■■ Wolferstin v Dillon—Wages £93 15s. Mr Beard for plaintiff, Mr Skipper for defendant, Mr Skipper applied for an adjournment on the ground that he had accepted tho service of summons on behalf of Mr Dillon and had not, subsequently been able.to communicate with 'him'. . ."...; ; The Court refused to grant an adjournment of this ground. 0. Wolferston deposed that he had only £3B in cash and goods during the two years, he had worked for defendant. Witness had applied for his wages from .time to time, but he had not been paid. There was an account between him and Dillon which he could ppt get, although he. had applied four tjmes for it. He made up what he owed Mr Dillon to be £3B, He had expressed his willingness to take £3O, and would do so now, to settle the matter, Judgment was entered for £55 and £5 33 costs, to be reduced to £35 3s. Moore v Donovan'-Rates, £l, Defendant confessed judgement, but wished to state that he had no entrance to his property except on sufferanoe. His Worship said, that statemont was the ground for a good grumble at the County. The amount was paid with' 10s costs,: Same v L, Johnston,—Rates, 6s 3d. The amount and 18s costs wero paid into Court, •• Muir ■& Dixon v Crawford.-Jnter-pleader 6,. Bowles. Mr Bunny for Muir & Dixon, Mr Sandilands for Interpleader. ■ Mr Sandilands said a cart had been sent by Crawford to Muir & Dixon for repairs with Bowles' name thereon. Muir & Dixon had repaired the cart and re-painted the name of Bowles thereon. He Bhould show that the cart had been seized on a judgment summons by the bailiff who had refused to give up possession of the cart to Bowles without the whole of tho claim was paid, The dispute was as to the ownership .of the cart. G. Bowles, buteher, of Carterton, said it was some months ago since ho gave Crawford an old trap to be repaired which he sent away to get paihtod. The trap • ' was ah ordinary butcher's cart with 'his name painted along the whole sides, He hail'since seen the cart in Lowes & lorns yards in possession of the bailiff. The oart was repainted and his name re-wrjtfcen thereon, He had never given any authority to Crawford to sell tho cart. The ■bailiff claimed £lB 8s which he had to pay before he could release the cart. By Mr' Bunny: He had not made a claim on Muir & Dixon for the cart, The Court said the judgment summons did away with any lien on the cart held by Muir & Dixon, and the quostion of lien could hot be introduced. What they had to consider was whether tho goods and chattels seized were the property of Robert Crawford, Mr Bowles, examined by Mr Bunny, said he had paid Crawford for the repairs to the cart by contra account. He had sent up an offer by letter to pay Muir & Dixon for what was done to the trap. Robert Crawford, blacksmith, Carterton, deposed that he remembered receiving from Mr Bowles a cart to be repainted, ne sent it to Muir & Dixon for that purpose George Bowles' name was on it. He saw the cart in Muir & Dixon's shop on Saturday week. It had been re-painted with George Bowles' name re-written on it, He went to try and make some arrangement for payment of his account, and Dixon told him it was out of his power, it was in the hands of the Court. The trap was not his, and there was nothing due on it by Bowleß, who owns the trap. He told Muir & Dixon the trap belonged to Bowles, who was away from home, and if they would wait he would get the money. By Mr Sunny: Bowles satisfied his claim at the end of last year. Ho toldi Muir & Dixon plainly that the trap be-, longed to Bowles, Edward Dixon deposed that since he obtained judgment he had seen Crawford, -who said he had come up to make arrangements about the trap, and he' asked him to withdraw, execution until Wednesday, Witness declined to stay proceedings. Crawford had never told him to whom the

cart belonged. Mr Bowles had never claimed the cart from them. His Worship said he had no doubt in his mind that tho seizure had been improperly made and he should make an order to refund the monoy and costs for to-day £3.