DISTRICT COURT, RAMIL

Waikato Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1594, 21 September 1882, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT, RAMIL-

Tuesday,— (Before His Honor District Judge Macdonald). Brown v Bock. — His Honor delivered judgment in this case as follows :—Plaintiff claims £25 on a promissory note, admittedly made in favor of Mr Booth by tho defendant, who, however, says it was given without consideration for the sole acoomodation of the payee, who on his part declared the note was in settlement of a claim he had on defendant for £3 10s the price of a stove, and £21 10s for odd jobs of carpentry. Being possessed of the note, Mr Booth failing to get it discounted, after a time pledged it for as much as he could, and the note being dishonored on the demand of the holder at its maturity in November last, he redeemed it, and nothing was clone until the following April, when Booth sells the note to the plaintiff at half price, £12 IQs being as was dQQlarecl paid, in cash. At that period Booth was indebted to plaintiff some £20 or £30 for hotel score. In May plaintiff applies for payment, and afterwards this action is brought. Defendant in his evidence^ besides speaking to the accomodation, aays that alter the first failure to discount he frequently ap* plied, ito, Booth for return, of the note, but was put off until finally told tfyejnqte had been destroyed. „ He said he had paid for the stove, and denied the indebtedness for carpentry. Of course. if the notp ; was given, as mentioned by Booth, defendant inua't be r , liable, and it was contended forplaintiff by Mr Hay that though this was anaccomodationnotej yet if plaintiff had without collusion paid the r£l2 ; loft f,or it i he,Mras|Teiititled,to i recoyer, With that X agreey other Hand if- 1 the note had been, given without con-, sideration, or if the between Booth andplaintitf ,wa^ colourable *nly, sM^'for^tH^ftpufiosV of*' cMitfnjsj' an ' " innocent .'Solder,''' ; or * ifr the"4ote wa«

taken 4 towards settlement of the grog *>' score, the plaintiff must fail. With all that I agree. Between the two contentions' I am inclined to accept neither as established. Booth could give no account of the work for which he said £21 10s was owing him, and though as he says ' hard up ' aud on bad terms with defendant, he makes no claim for the amount of the note for five months, when he sells it,, though in the meantime there was ample time to have enforced payment. The importation of an innocent holder I confess adds to ' my suspicion, especially when he is not a person dealing in money 'matters, but a publican with a long score owing to him by his alleged vendor. Altogether the case is too doubtful for -me on the evidence to arrive at a conclusion, so that I shall leave plaintiff the option of taking the opinion of a jury and non-suit him, but by reason of the doubtful nature of" the case I shall give no costs. ' Catherine Wylie v. J. P. Thompson. — Mr Hay for plaintiff, and Mr Dyer for the defendant. This itiisa case in which plaintiff charged defendant with wrongful conversion of property. Defendant had obtained a bill of sale over certain horses from one McCarthy to secure repayment of a loan of £50. Subsequently, at the request of McCarthy, defendant handed the bill of sale to Mr J. S. Buckland on receipt from him ot the amount of the loan. After this transaction had been effected plaintiff produced a receipt from McCarthy for the value of the horses which plaintiff alleged had been bought by her. Mr Buckland sold the horses under the bill of sale, and plaintiff then brought the present action. Plaintiff was put in the box and in answer to the Bench, said she was a married woman living apart from her husband, who was not a party to the present action. Mr Dyer urged that plaintiff could not sue without her husband's consent, and after some argument, His Honor said he would grant an adjournment to allow the plaintiffs husband to be made a party in the case, plaintiff to pay the costs of the adjournment