RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT, TF AWAMUTU.

Waikato Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1884, 2 August 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT, TF AWAMUTU.

— _ «, Thuksuay. -(Befoie Mr 11. W. Northcroft, R.M., and Mcssm .7. H. Mandeno, J. Hutclnnson, and Capt. Bockett, J.F.) CIVIL CVh!,S. Mauy Cohhoy y. Ditmn.— Mr Grecian) for plaintiff.— Claim, £1 1(K lid. Judgment for full amount, and costs £1 7s Od. Maiy Coiboy v. Arnold.— Mr Gresham for pl.imtiff. — Claim, £2J)s Bd. Judgment for full amount, and cost-^ 81 7s Od. W. J. Thompson v. Hai lick. --Claim, £1 10?. Judgment for full amounts, and co&ts £1 1(K J G. Wilkinson v. Mainuaiing. — Mr Gresham foi plaintiff. — Debt, £8 Od, boaid and [ lodging and refreshment'-. Judgment for £7 10.->, and costs £2 7s Od. T. Giesham v. Noka. — At tlio lequest of the plaintiff, this case was struck out. T. Greshani v. H. Lewis. — Claim, legal expenses. This was an action brought by Mr Gie'-ham to recover the sum of £12 0s 7d, bill of cost 1 -. Mr Lewis conducted his own case, and Mr Gresbam his. W. J. Tristiain, being sworn, deposed that he was a clerk in the employment of the plaintiff, and delnoied the bill of co^ts to the defendant. Thomas Gresham, sworn, pioduced a copy of the retainer. This action was bi ought to lecovcr a bill of costs for the case of Lewis v. Ellison, w Inch v/as to lecovei the amount of a promissory note. Witness explained to the plaintiffs son, who was then a cletk in his employment, that if the case was taken befoio the Supreme Court, Mr Lewis would have the advantage of getting execution on the defendants' (Ellison's) goods, but when execution was attempted, the goods were claimed by Mr Knox. He (plaintiff) then ga\o notice to the moitgagees of Ellison's property that there was a judgment against him. Meantime a baliff bad been put in, but he was subsequently withdiawn. The defendant, on being presented with the bill of costs, disputed the liability, telling witnes-. that the ca-e should have been heaid in the R.M. Court, and not in the Supreme Com t. Cross-examined by Mr Lewis : The fir-t item of £3 8s it for cost of issuing wnt and usual charges. To the best of my belief I did not pocket moie than £1 13s out of the charge of £3 Bs. You sent me two duplicates to sue Mr Ellison for £lo 7s, but I pointed out to your .son the advantage of slicing in the Supiome Cunt. The man's laud was not ad\eitised for Halo by the moitgagee at that time. I did not say the pioper letnedy was by the Supiemo Couit, but pointed out tin 1 advantages. I said if we could get it out of Mr Ellison the costs would not come out of your pocket. I am not a wai c that it is the duty of a solicitoi to conduct cases with as little expense as possible to cither paities. I did not tell you what the difference in expenses would be by by taking it to the Supteme Comt, but I believed that was the better way. I did not take that case into the Supieme Couit foi my benefit but for youis, as you would get execution on the land. It would not have been my duty to advise you to take a case f. r a small amount into the R.M, Court instead of the Supieine Comt. If you had not signed the anthoiity to sue in the Supiemo Couit, I would have taken case into the K.M. Couit. By the bench : My Lewi-, obtained no more bonaflt by bunging the action in the Supierne Court than if he had brought it befoio the K.M. Court. Mr Lewis presented an opinion by Messrs Hesketh and Richmond, but the plaintiff objected, and the bench ruled they could not accept it. Benjamin Lewis, son of the defendant, sworn, deposed that he told his father Mt Giesham wished to bung the case befoie the Supreme Court, and his father replied that he did not wish it tiied m that way if it would cost any mine, to which Mi Gresham replied that it would not cost much moie, and the o\.pPiises would come out of Ellison's pocket, and not out of his father's. He signed the authority on behalf of his father, who, however, was strongly against the case being bi ought into the Supreme Court. Cioss-examiued by plaintiff : Ido not remember your telling me the advantage of this couise would be execution on the land. You said the difference would be very little. To the best of my belief I .signed the authority on behalf of my father, who was then ill in bed. There was no agreement to sue in that way boyond the authority. By defendant : Mr Giesham said the extra expense would be very ti ifling. I am sure Mr Giesham said the extra expense would not come out of my father's pocket. I gave Mr Gresham your message to the effect that if the expense would be much moie he was not to sue in that way, and on those conditions you let him proceed with the case. Both sides then addressed the beuch, the plaintiff quoting " Chitty_ on Contracts." Mr Lewis then went into the box and being sworn, ho &aid he did not sign the authority, nor was it signed in his piesence. Judgment deferred. THE JIAOIU HOUSE CASE. Hunaitimoa v. li. J. Gillies. Mr Hay for plaintiff, Mr O'Neill for defendant. The nature of this case has already bepn stated in our column. Rangiorifa father was in attendance. Mr Hay addressed the bench as follows : "As I want your worship as a witness in this case, I will abandon the claim for special damages so as to admit of the justices hearing it, that is, if the bench have no objection." The R.M. said, in reply to Mr O'Neill that the justices could hear it under those circumstances. His Worship said, he felt the difficulty of sitting on the case from the first and would prefer not sitting on the bench. If the abandonment of the special damages reduced the amount claimed to under £20 the justices could bear it, Mr O'Neill wanted to know whether the case would be decided by law or under the equity and good conscience clause. Mr Hay said he had no objection to its being decided either way. His Worship decided that snch native cases to be heard under the equity and good conscience clause. The couit was adjourned for a short time and on re-opening the justices only occupied the bench. Hunaitemoa, being sworn, deposed : I reside at Whatiwhatihoe. I know the horse in this case, a dark grey mare ; I got her from my father when be came from Rangitikei. I never sold or gave it away to anyone, but the horse is gone. I saw the horse a short time ago here in a paddock. On the 19th May I demanded it from Mi* Gillies, in whose charge it was. I handed him a paper demanding the horse, but lie would not receive it ; he pushed it away from him. Someone who .was there ' told * Gillies to. take the ,paper. I have it „ new (paper produced). That is, the paper Grillies refused to receive. When herefuaed to take it a. European told him to take' it. 1 do not know his name,* but would know him if Ijgavf ,h.ira ,,P r - Northcroft .being called- in* was' identified 'as the ,Europ«iaW. S^^tioJd^iinJ to take the paper jwhen^wUiej»X e fM?sM,^ ?* ve *r* n « papee ?to','6illie^,fArw^her/;^id^heviaae'w nothing

Northcroft took the paper, looked at it and said, "It is for you. Gillies." He «aid : " Where is your horse ?" I pointed it out. He asked mo if that was my bor-e, aiid 1 said " yes." He then smid to me, " Takeyour horse." Gillies said, "If you attempt to tike the horse I « ill stop it." I did not, for I was afraid of Gillies, as he is a p >licetnan. I did ,not know who Mr Northcroft was. After that I offered the paper again to Gilli< s. He got angiy with mo, and told me to g ) outside the fence. Mr Northcroft then , a .1 to Gillies, " Don't dine the 111.1:1 out of the Government paddock." I then went out. That was all that took place. I claim £12 for the loss of my horse, and dam.v c £0, made up as follows : — For the tioui le i had in looking for the horae, in going to and from Hamilton to Alexandra, and foi money expended during the time I was looking for the horse, such as for beds, food, and horse feed. I claim also £10 for the time the horse was lost, that is 5s per day for twenty days the horse was lost. Mr O'Neill objected to the particulars at this stage. He pointed out that 20 days at 5s would be only £5. He -^aid the bill of particulars ■-aid only eight days elapsed, so how could defendant be made liable for 20 days? Mr Hay said it was pui ely a matter of evidence. Witness cross-examined by Mr O'Neill : The horse has been lost live months or more. I claim twenty days' damages at 5s a day, beginning on the 19th May. It was ivy own idea to charge from the 19tlr May. The horse I saw in the paddock was a daik grey, not a bay. If it was a bay it would not be mine. Ido not know the age of the horse, but my lather knows. I did not ask him. lam the only owner of the horse ;it was given to me by my father when we loft liangitikei before last Christmas. Mr O'Neill wanted to know whether the hoi so was given before or .liter the Sheriff's sale on the 20th February. Witness : We left Kangitikei just before Christmas, and spent Christmas on the road. The horse was ghen to me befoie we left Raugitikei. My father ga\e me the horse to sell if I wished ; not exactly to sell, but if I chose I could sell it. The moiiby would have bion mine if I sold it. The notice was diawn up for sen ice 'in G lilies. The oiu-uies on the top of the notice were made before Ig.uoir to Gillies ; tho^o on the lower part wore not. I wiote hie. name myself on the notic* on the 19th of May. I think Gillies knew the meaning of the paper, as he looked .it it for some time. Ido not know if he undei stood the Maori ; but it was in English also. I do not know if he lead it. I believe ho knew the English, because ho said it was not for him. He must have known it, as he said lb was not foi him. Mr Noithcroft said, II Yes, Gillies, it is for you." When I gave it to Gillie-, the name " W. James " was eiased. That was my demand. I had it in that paper. I do not understand much English, only a word or two. Mr Northcroflsaid, "that paper is for you, Gillies."' (Tins the witness said in English.) Gillie* said, " If the Maori takes the horse, I Will stop him." This was w hen Mr Noithcioft told me to fake it. I valued the horse at €12. That is the puce I want for him. No one told me it was woith £12. That is my \n\ n price. I do not know what it sold for at the sheuffV sale at C'irnbiidgc. I know a man iKimed JJoglnii ty, at Alexandra. I know him by sight. I did hear ho had the horse 111 question in his possession ; I ho'iid it fiom someone, I did not know it mysflf. T he.ud he was at the hotel. I went theie 111 1 demand my hoiae fiom him, but he \\.i» not Iheie. I heaid the horse was here. I saw the hoi&e in James' stable in Alexnndia, and went at once to look foi DogheiGV, but did not see him. I heard the hou-.e was brought heie by someone, 1 did not heai it wasto be sold here. I a-Oced Gillies for it. I foi got the date on which Gillies brought it, but think it was the 18th May. I heard Gillies had it. (Tillies told me when I gave him the paper it was not for him, as the horse did not belong to him. Mr Northci oft asked him w hose the horse was, but Gillies did not answer. I asked him then, but still he did not answer. Mr Noithcroft took pait 111 the affair when Gillies said the papei «.h not for him, for he (Mr Noithcioft) said it was. I nevei saw Mr Northcioft befoie he told mo, if the hor&e was mine, to take it. I did not take it. He said I \\ ji .1 fool because I did not take it I never saw 01 spoke to Mr Noithcroft befoie. He is a hti anger to me. 1 undei stood some of what was said in English, but not all of it. J3y Mr Play : I pointed out the horse when Mi Ni.ithcioft a->kcd me about it Gillies, Mi Noithcioft, myself and otheis, went o\ei to whoie the hoi so wa<«. lam cot tain the hoi se that was m the paddock was

Mr jSToi fchcr. >ft, being sum n deposed : I .mi R.M. foi Wa.ik.ito. I wa-> heie ab the To AwAiiiutu Covut bouse on the l'Jth May. I saw tlio hotce in question. It was., in my opinion .1. daik giey, that would bo the best description of it. I was in Ale\andui on the 9th May, when the clerk of the com t came into the room where I and Mi Wilkinson wine sitting and said the b.iiliiF had seized the horses that were in Jamesyuid. I told Gillies that whoever bough i that hoise would buy a law-suit. Coining along the road home Gillies intimated to me that he would like to buy one of the hotses. I told him not to buy the little pony, as, whoever buys it buys a law-suit, a<* it was in litigation. The last thing 7 said to him on lea\ ing was not to buy the hoiNe, as he would buy a law suit. Mi Hay on heaiing the horses were soM h\ Wibley said, "I will go foi him.'' I said don't do that, as he is an officer of the court. He said he would go for the next owner. T saw Gillies hand a document he received from a native to Mr Roche, who handed it to me. I said, "Gillies, ] thought I told you not to buy one of these hoi«.es." The native was theie. Gillie said the horse was not his. I s;iid if the hoiie was the native's he should take it. Gillies said, "If he does I will stop him.' I told Gillies to tell the natr'e whose the hor.-c was, and whore the owner lived, but Gillies or someone piesent sai<l, " We will get rid of the horse this evening." I told them not to do anything of the sort. I said to the native, "Take your hoise •nith you." Gillies said he would stop him if he did. I told him he had no right to older the native out of the paddock, as he had as much right there' as we. By Mr Hay : Gillie*- w ould have no right to stop anyone fiom putting a horse in the paddock when on coait business. I would s,iy the hoise had a grey head, back and legs, but the sides were brown. I nevei saw the native to my knowledge befoie. (The notice of demand was produced.) J could not swear that this us the notice j served on Gillies. He could not fail to know that this was the hoise demanded. He said he could not let the hoise go, as it was in his chareje, or words to th it effect. Cross-evamined by Mr O'Neill : I will swear that Gillies said that. lam positive Ihe said it. If Sibley swears that Gillies did not say these woids, it will not be conect. 1 feel positive he said those very words. I told the native to take the hoi se. It is not pai t of Gillies' duty to take notice of such documents as are not legal. 1 will not swear positively that Gillies did say to the native that the horse belonged to his brother. I told him after last court day that the horse belonged to his brother. I told him after last court day shat he was legally and morally liable for the bor.se. To the Bench : Ido not think the hor&e is worth more than £5. The case was then adjourned till 11 a.m. on Friday.