Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

RESIDENT MAGISTRA TE'S COURT, CAMBRIDGE.

Yesterday.— (Before Mr H. \V. Northcroft, R.M.) Wells and SourrEß v. Macvt\kahi\ — Claim £47 Is Id, goods supplied. Judgment for amount, and costs ii 19s. Hewitt v. Kincaid. Claim for rent under an agreement of lease. Mr Whitaker for plaintiff, and Mr l)yer for defendant. The defence was that defendant, being drunk, was not in a fit state to sign f ,hp deed. Edward Hewitt deposed that the defendant rented from him a shop at a rental of 30s per week. On the morning of the 9th July he met defendant, who wanted to know if he would put up a shed for him. Witness said yes if the defendant would take it for a term. To this defendant agreed, if he could have the shop on leaso at £1 per week. Witness said no, but eventually agreed on 255. An agreement was instantly made out. Mr Dyer, after looking at the lease, here objected, as the stamp was not sufficient. The fine bein^ paid, Witness proceeded. Mr Kincaid went over to the lawyer's office, and heard the deed read. Some talk took place as to the conditions and Kincaid signed it. He all the while seemed in a perfectly businesslike state. Next morning Kincaid went to witness, and said he had promised five shillings too much, but witness said, " here is your agreement, and I will keep you to it." Cross-examined by Mr Dyer. The new document was drawn up at defendant's suggestion. The defendant had had 0s Gd worth of liquor at witness's hotel. Defendant went over by his own free will. He afterwards refused to recognise his agreement, and Rent back the key, which was returned by Mr Whitaker back to Kincaid again. Witness did not remember seeing Mr Lewis cotrie over and take Mr Kincaid away. There was no necessity for such action, Kincaid being all right. Defendant seemed very desirous to sign the agreement that day. Witness did not give defendant any liquor before the agreement was signed. Re-examined by Mr Whitaker. He did not think defendant drank Gs Gd worth ; he might have shouted for others. Win. Kincaid was then sworn to answer some questions by Mr Whitaker. He could not remember anything about tho deed, as he was drunk that day. (The witness here took the paper and read it.) He would nut take his oath as to any action committed by him on that day, not being sober. Robt. (xerring deposed that he was familiar with Kincaid's signature. This witness was sworn merely to testify as to the signature. Several were shown to him, and he said they were all alike. His Worship disagreed with him. However, after a lengthy examination, he went down. Frank Hartley deposed : The signature, "Frank Hartley," on the deed as witness was his. Mr Hewitt came to him at 5 o'clock and asked him to prepare a deed. He did so, and then Mr Hewitt wanted Mr Whitaker to go across to the h>fcpl with it, but he refused, .and then Mr Kincaid came and signed it. Witness corroborated plaintiff's testimony as to the reading of the deed. Defendant seemed to know what he was doing. Cross-examined by Mr Dyer. Defendant might have had a glass or two. He would not define any number. When Kincaid went out he walked quite steady. Mr F. A. Whi Laker here said he would answer any question on oath that was asked him. Mr Dyer consented and witness deposed that Hewitt said Kincaid was waiting acioss at the hotel, and to fetch it across, but he refused and said he did no business out of the office. Kincaid then crossed over and heard the document read. He seemed to understand it right enough. He then signed. Cross-examined by Mr Dyer. He absolutely refused to do any buMiio^sin a public house. Kincaid told him a week afterwards that he would say he was in liquor at the time the deed was signed. Witness advised bun not to do so, as he would appear as witness figainst him. This cosed the case for the prosecution. The court then adjourned till 9 a.m. today.

We direct attention to several alterations and additions t> the unction advertisements of Messrs W. J. Huntei\& Co. and A, Auckland and Ct.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WT18861016.2.13

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Waikato Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2227, 16 October 1886, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
719

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CAMBRIDGE. Waikato Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2227, 16 October 1886, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CAMBRIDGE. Waikato Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2227, 16 October 1886, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert