R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XV, Issue 4341, 10 February 1893, Page 3

R.M. COURT.

MASIERTON.-THURSDAY.

(Boron Oolonol Roberts, 8.M.)

On resuming at 2 o'clock the following cases were heard. Bird v. Barker. His Worship said he would treat the case as not served and ordered a fresh summons to be issued.

Mr Bunny, who appeared for defendant, applied for costs, but His Worship refused to allow them. Baker v. George, Claim 181 Ms 2d. Mr Pownall for plaintiff, Mr Beard for defendant. Mr Pownall said that promissory noto was given to defendant by Mrs Baker. Tho transactions were made by her son, R, J, Baker, extending over some eighteen months. During this time payments had been made to George from time to time for all goods supplied, without taking into account the promissory noto, The books had been examined by an accountant and tho question for the Court to decide was whether Mr George bail been over paid as their books showed, and if so, how much. Mrs Baker had to meet the promissory note, which had beoo used by defendant for his benefit without giving any equivalent, Thos. C. D'Arcy said he was an accountant and had made up tho accounts between Bailor and George. He pro-

duced tbe Day Book Ledger and

Bank Book. There was no mention in •*• >Jinyofthe books of the promissory in question, The only promissory .- rioto was for £25 payable-in February, 1892, From the statements of accounts bo had raado up tho account was exactly balanced. He found no entries in any of the books of the promissory noto for £3olos nor did the books show any goods that could be paid for by this note, By Mr Beard: On 27th February, 1882, the accounts between the parties showed Mrs Baker indebted to Ueorgo in tho sum of £l4 8s 2d, in satisfaction of which a cheque was given on March Bth for £GG 17s 2d including goods supplied between the 27th February and March 9th amounting to about 132, A small cheque had been tjiven sinco to balance the accounts. By Mr Pownall ; The items marked paid in the day book wereincluded in the statement he had made out,

To Mr BcjjflfatTlio pages in tho ledger were US out before he got tho books to mako up. Ho did not ask for tho missing pages. Ho was aekod to mako up tho accounts from the commencement but had not done 60.

By Mr Pownall: The books showed all paymonts to bo rnado by cheque or promissory note. R. J, baker said that ho carried on the iollmougory on liis mother's behalf. Ho bad no interest in the business. Witness had token out the pages in which George's account was indexed, Ho had no object in taking them out except that he had made a mc3s of thorn. The balance sheet showed the wbolo of the transactions from the- start to finish, The cheque given in May for £2 2s dd was given to square the account which witness had inado up, Ho had forgotten about the promissory note v when ho paid the last cheque, other* wiso ho would not have paid it, neiHP Iher would he havo paid tho cheque of May tho 19th for £3l lis. The promissory note dow in question was a renewal of another promissory note, with a few shillings added to it, The bill transactions did not appear ill tho account at all, they wore given as accommodation, Mrs Baker had nine? had to pay the amount of £Bl Ms'Mi'fte'considered they weronqw entitled torecover Una amount/' ' :; '' By Mr Beard: Cut tho : pages out of the ledger some two or three months ago, previous to D'Arcy getting the books. Mado a mess in entering the accounts from the day b00k, ,; Had no other reason for outling oul 1 1|)0 f iges, Witfi'osa gavo

tlio first promissory note for £BO ss; It was written out at random. The 5s was not added as interest, the other 5s was added to the renewed bills, at defendant's request. Defendant asked witness to renew tho bill as ho was rather pushed, Did not see tho defondaiit'a book with an amount owing to him of £lßl at tho time of giving the promissory note, Tho last deal was on tho 19th May, tho promissory noto was renewed some days after that. Had not taken any pages out of the day book. This whs the case for the plaintiff, For the defence Mr Beard called defendant, Thos, George, who said the second promissory nolo was given becauso the pluintill could not meet the first one. The amount of L3O 5s O'd was made up in LBO owing to witness tho 5s Cd interest on tho amount. The plaintiff could not give a cheque at tho time and asked witness to take the bill, The bill was not given as nn accommodation to witness. Plaintiff told witness that ho was not able to meet tho bill and asked that witness take a renewal for threo montla After consulting with his banker witness agreed to renew for ono month with interest added. The first witness heard that plaintiff made out that it was an accommodation bill, was when ho got notice from Mr Pownall. Plaintiff had onci (old witness that he did not owo tho amount of tho bill, and that bo had been over paid. Did not owo any monoy to plaintill' wliatover.

To Mr Pownall; Had no account all through, tbo transactions showing the goo'ls supplied as against tho money received. Taking the entries of goods on one band and tlio money paid, witness declined toswoartlut he had been overpaid or that ho had not been paid enough. Witness had no complete account in his books except from 25th January, 1892, up to stli March of the sama year, Witness said tlio promissory note was in part payment. Unfortunately ho could not cheque plaintiffs statement of accounts

To Mr Beard: Tho witness did not cut out papers ofliis boots and substitute others. Mr Pownull said tliut supposing there was ut settlement in March, then it was clear that tho money claimed was owing. His Worship said ho would tako time to look into the accounts, and give his decision to-morrow (Friday) morning. FRIDAY. (Before Colonel Roberts, R.M., and Eli Smith, Esq, J.P.) On the Court resuming this morning, His Worship said ho was of tho opinion that the amount of the promissory noto in the case Bnlior v. Gee had been overpaid, and was recoverable, Judgment would there foro bo given for tho plaintiff with costs. RABBIT PROSECUTION. Smith v. Anderson.—Mr A. R, ( Bunny appeared for the plaintiff and Mr John Andrew for tho defendant. An application for an ntlj.iurntneiit to tho 23rd instant was granted, Smith v, E. E, Chamberlain.— Charged with failing to destroy rabbits on his property according to the satisfaction of the Inspector. Defendant pleaded guilty to tho rabbits, but said that ho had taken measures to abate tho nuisance by employing men, A fine of £1 with costs 7s was in- ! flirted. Smith v. H. Welch. Similarly charged,tho defnodaut pleaded guilty, A fine of £1 with costs 7s was inflicted,