DISTRICT COURT, HAMILTON. Yesterday,—(Before His Honor District Judge Macdonald).

Waikato Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1593, 19 September 1882, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT, HAMILTON. Yesterday, —(Before His Honor District Judge Macdonald).

In BankruptcyIn re E. J. Hedgecock. Mr Hay applied for an order of discharge. Granted. In re Margaret Newell. Mr Hay applied for an order of discharge. Granted.

Civil Oases. McPITERSOX Y. W. P. BuCKLAND. — Claim £22 19s Sri. Mr Hay for plaintiff, and Mr O'Neill for defendant. The money had been paid since proceedings were instituted, by cheque dated a month before the time of receipt. The case turned on the question of the liability of defendant for the delay occasioned in transmission, and as plaintiff insisted on proceeding with the case, His Honor adjourned the hearing for the production of defendant's evidence. R. S, Browk v. S. W. Buck.—Claim, •£26 28 6d, amount of a dishonored P.N., with interest. Mr Hay for plaintiff, and Mr O'Neill for defendant. _ The particulars of the case may be briefly stated as follows :—Frederick Booth, a carpenter, liviug at Piako, deposed that defendant gave him a P.N. for £25 for work done and goods supplied, in August, 1881. He conlcl not get the Bank to discount it, so he left it there for collection. Subsequently got an advance of £10 on it. It was dishonored on maturing, and he returned it. Spoke to defendant, who asked him to hold it over. Fve months afterwards he sold the bill for £12 10s to plaintiff, as he was short of money. In cross-examination witness said defendant owed him at the time £21 10s for work done, and £3 10s for a stove. Had rendered an account for the work, which was made up from an account book, since mislaid. The bill was not given by way of an accommodation. He had a contract for building the Phoenix Hotel, now occupied by defendant, which contract was taken from him. Had got credit from Brown, who kept the other hotel at Piako, but was never pressed for money by plaintiff. The P.N. was not given to square accounts. Made no effort bo recover the money between November and April when he sold it to Brown. Mr James Hume, manager of the Bank of- New Zealand, Hamilton, deposed to the bill having been dishonored. A day or two afterwards he met Buck, who expressed astonishment at the bill being disj honored, as it had been given to Booth by way of accommodation. Buck advised witness to write to Booth, which he did, and Booth at once paid the amount advanced against the bill. ,-R« S. Brown, the the plaintiff in' the case, landlord of the Nottingham Castle Hotel, corroborated Booth's evidence, which related to the transaction between the two. f,For the defence it was alleged that the bill was lan accommodation bill, as he ( owed, nothing to "Booth at the time. The stove (spoken of had been paid for partly by notes, and partly by cheque. (The ch*eque ( was subsequently produced by 'Mr Hu^tie.) Furthermore,,,defendant deposed that Boothhad, told him the bill i ,had,been destroyed..;, '-.;j > ■ ,r, r .r- '- l His, Hpnor, deferred judgment' till,this ',morning, to enable,him to consider some law.points raised by counsel; *k ' f TJk^Qojus waVtfieh^journedtill this 'mornin|rat^en' o'clock, when' 1 the case, "vTylie.v^ J>P. Thompsqnj alleged wrongs conversion of property, wiU^cbine ,ori