R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XV, Issue 4630, 26 January 1894, Page 3

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON-THUBBDAY. (Before Mr T. Hutohison, R.M.) i ' 01VIL OABBS. O.A. Pownall and W.'O. Cargill t. R, J; Malcolm and J. O.Eastwood. -Mr Pownall appewed'dfor plaintiffs, Mr Beard for the defendant East» " Slid tie mattirWisometrliat oompltoated. Msfcolm had purchased from Eaßtwood the Union Hotel, Pahiatua, but being unable to complete the bargain unaided, the plaintiff* endorsed bills amounting to £IOB for MalcotMo Eastwood. In order to protect wmaclvts plainiiffb arranged that no alienation of thu premises should take place whether the notes were due or not. At the < inception of the transaction Eastwood knew that Malcolm would be helped by plaintiffs though the latter were not aware the amount would be so . large.. Plaintiffs understood that the bargain was concluded and Malcolm had possession, This was done at the end of August, 1893. On Dec. 80th contrary to the said agree' ment Eastwo-d himself became A purchaser from Malcolm, and the promissory notes were not provided for, These arrangements Were made in Wellington in Mr Trayers' office. Afterwards it was found that Eastwood had reads misrepresentations, and plaintiffs asked for the bills baok. This was declined, and their whereabouts could not be diseorered, Afterwards £lO was found to be in the bunds of Mr fiutement, and £9B with Mr Briggs, of Pahiatua. The bills were never intended to be negotiated. £7O was paid to Briggs, and plaintiffs now sought to recover the £7O from either Malcolm or Eastwood. Mr Pownall then went into the witness box, and repeated what he had said in opening the case. By Mr Beard: The agreement was

drawn up by me between Malcolm and Eastwood, £B6O was"to bo gtveu for the hotel, It was in the agreement that £IOO should be advanced by plaintiffs. Mad been suggested all along that JBessrs Cargill and Pownall should' find some money, Learned about middle of Soptemuer that cash could not be found by Malcolm. Eastwood doubted whether his license would be renewed, and wasglad to get rid of his hotel at any price. W. O. Cargill gave corroborative evidence, and said he signed Bubjeot to the agreement that Malcolm should not be allowed to leave the hotel, wishing to protect himself against Malcolm, By His Worship: Yon wished to help Malcolm and yet be protected against him. Witness: Yes. Witness continningsaid he thought there had been false representation on the part of Malcolm, A week previous to endorsing witness bad promised to do so, but did not know his name bad been put into the agreement. , By His Worship: I agreed with Mr Pownall to endorse the bills provided Malcolm did iot sell out, without providing foms bills whether they matured or not. By Mr Beard: 1 understood the endorsement of the bills concluded the business and, put Malcolm in possession, I did not trouble to find oat whether- Malcolm had paid Eastwood. By flu Worship: I do not know the amount of the purchase money. By Mr Beard: The only fraud with whigh I Qharge Eastwood is misreprosmtation in saying the business was ooncluded after the notes were en" dotted, when as a matter of fact the bargain was not settled. By His Worship; I did not know what the bargain was hetween Maicolm and Eastwood, The license was transferred to Malcolm, but Eaßtwood

remained in the hotel, This concluded the case for the •plaintiff y^ J. Oi Eastwood said he wsb formerly in possession of the Union Hotel at Pahiatua and sold out to Malcolm for £B6O, £2t>o in cash, £IOO in bills endorsed by Messrs Cargill and Pownall, the balance in bills from Malcolm. Malcolm went into possession on September |nh, When contract of Bile wp drawn, np Mr Pownall said Jie and Mr Cargill would endorse bills for £IOO. When witness came down to get the bills signed, Pownall said he would not Bign, but afterwards ooniented to do so, as did Cargill tlao. Mr Pownall said the bills were not properly drawn up. Witness gave !iem to, Mr Memeqt to discpunt, ut'ftiscriuld'no't lie done;' The bills ere 1 not fo-drawn, but'were given back to Malcolm, who was told they were no good. Malcolm gave him another bill of £7O. As the bills and reat'became due, and Malcolm did pot pa),'witness re-entered into possession of the bote), ' By Mr Pownall: Witness was owSir pj'lb.o hotel subject to securities _ yen to mortgagees. Malcolm did not tofuao to go out of the hotel unless . plaintiffs were protected, ■> The money was advanced toJMcolm, and witness was not resppenle for Malcolm's liabilities. In consideration of witness taklp'g'oyer certain obligations Malcolm agreed to assign the business to hip, Wit'ness ! told plaintiffs'that the sighing of (hpbilj completed. t|ie tipsaoiipntoa certain extent, bul'MalJ QOlm did not pay the money, Ho (witness) did not mislead plaintiffs in any way. Told Malcolm that he (witness) would not move from the house till the monsy was paid, ' Bis Worship said there was some I misunderstanding as to what constituted completion, evidently . -'jhoiight eWpletldn meant possession. , of tie house', and entry into it, which ' Malcolm had had. Contlaujng, witness said Malcolm waß told to give him bills which wore npgotja&le. The first tinje: ho knew jh? bills were no good was in Wellington,' though' n'e '{earned from/Mr townal| that they were irregular. Mr Malcolm had sole possession directly hp came rip. . Witness stayed in the hotel and did not pay for hjs board though he bad no confrol of mapap mpjfpntil after Malcolm left. Tie. case pas then adjourned untjl JJ r)clopk on Friday (tchday). Thurpase was .further adjourned 'until iOo'olook to-morrow (Saturday) to enable an important document to be produced.

' ■"FRIDAY. MS DOT T. «, DIW. ■ Mn Dew, t dtatUute person ftp- - plied to the Court for money ordered to be.p&ii tohei bjherion,'iiho

fortnight in which .time £2 of the arrears was to be paid off and ,4s a week to be also paid, Ifthodefen* dant thought there were suioient grounds for not supporting his mother he most apply to the Court for the order to be rescinded. Mary Tioehurst r, Jas, Tioehurst. —Mr Beard, who appeared for defendant, 1 asked for an adjournment until the next,sitting of the Court at Carterton. •''." Mr Pownall opposed the adjournment, submitting that it was not reasonable. Hia Worship suggested that plaintiff's witnesses should bo heard as there appeared to bo great discrepancies as to the facts of the usee, Mr Pownall demurred to this course, and the oase was adjourned until the next Court day it Carterton,