RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 836, 13 July 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Tuesday, July 11. (Before J. Giles, Esq.,R.M.) CIVIL (,'ASES. Johnston v. Hayne. Claim for £ll lis sd. Judgment, by default, in the amount claimed and costs. Patterson v. Gardiner. Claim for £2. The defendant denied his liability, and stated that he had always paid for the boots he got from the plaintiff at the time of delivery. The plaintiff stated that the items consisted of a balance upon boots, obtained in 1869, and the value of a pair delivered in June, 1870. There was no evidence to prove that delivery had been given to the defendant, or that he had ordered the goods, and the plaintiff was nonsuited. Corr v. Thomas. Claim for £l2 6s lid. The defendant admitted that the goods had been supplied to two of his mates and himself, and stated that he was prepared to pay his share of the liability. His Worship, in giving judgment, informed him that he was liable for the whole amount jointly with his mates, from whom he could recover their respective shares. Judgment would be for the plaintiff in the amount claimed and costs. Besancon v. Nelson. Claim for £23 6s Bd. This wa3 an action in trover to recover an order for £l3 6s Bd, or its value, and claiming £lO damages. Mr Pitt appeared for the plaintiff, and the defendant did not appear. The evidence of the plaintiff, a Frenchman, was taken through Mr Jules Simon, who was sworn as interpreter. He stated that he had worked on wages for the Murray Cement Crushing Company, and obtained an order from Bray, the manager, upon some person in Greymouth for £l3 6s Bd. Nelson, the defendant, had been in the habit of cashing these orders, and he presented it to him for the money. He called on two occasions, and was told by the defendant that t there was not sufficient in hand to pay him. Shortly after the defendant came to his hut and told him that the money could be paid, whereupon he gave the defendant the order. Nelson then refused to pay the money, staiing that the order was all that he wanted. He asked the defendant to return the order or pay the money, which the defendant refused to do. The defendant was or might be under the impression that he had a claim against him (plaintiff) for goods supplied to a Peter Brenuau who was camped in a tent adjacent to him, but he did not owo Nelson anything. His Worship, in giving judgment, stated that the defendant had acted in a most unjustifiable manner, and clearly had obtained the order by fraud. Judgment would be for the full amount, including damages and costs, in addition to counsel's costs — £3 3s.

Tomperly v. J. Powell and Company.—An interpleader summons had beeu issued in this case, calling upon Powell and Co. to prove the validity of their claim under a bill of sale to the Eoyal Oak Hotel and chattels, the apparent property of Kobert Hayne. Mr Pitt appeared for.the mortgagees. The circumstances of the case were, that Stitt Brothers, on July (3, obtained execution against Kayne, and instructed the bailiff to levy upon the hotel. The bill of sale was produced, but the instrument was not registered. Mr Stitt contended that the bill of sale was inoperative, not being regis-

tored, and that Hayne had acted withr fraudulent intent in granting the bill of sale. Mr Pitt cited authority showing that the bill of sale could not be put aside, although unregistered, until the twenty-one days' grace allowed by the Act should have expired. His Worship held the same view but adjourned the case until the following day to obtain the evidence of Haynes.

Wednesday, Jxtlt 12. Temperly v. Powell and Company. —The hearing of this case was resumed. Mr Home appeared on behalf of the execution creditor, and stated that he admitted the legality of the bill of sale, which, however, was a conditional one, giving Hayne the power of redeeming the property on payment of £63, the mortgagees' lien. All he asked from the Court was that the bailiff should be instructed to sell subject to the bill of sale. He need scarcely point out that such a course would prejudice no lawful interest. Mr Pitt contended that the question was as to whether the bailiff could hold possession against the mortgagees. They claimed possession under the bill of sale. Mr Home replied, pointing out the injustice that might accrue to creditors if a man were permitted to secure his property for any nominal amount, and then set his creditors at defiance. His Worship reserved judgment until the following day.