Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.


Tuesday, May 18. (Before Mr. F. Guinness, R.M.) UNSERVED SUMMONSES.

Passmore v. Johnson. In this case there was a difficulty in serving the summons, and Mr. Purnell obtained an enlargement of the summons until the 4th J une. Hewitt v. Bates and Baldwin. One of the defendants in this case had gone to Wellington, and Mr. Purnell asked for house service, and an enlargement of the summons for a fortnight. His Worship granted the application ; but an application for costs by Mr. O’Reilly on behalf of Baldwin, who had appeared several times already to go on with the case, was refused. THE BAILIFF CASE. Meehan v. Friedlander. His Worship said that in giving judgment in this case last sitting day, he had inadvertently made use of the words “ case dismissed.” He- had rectified the error on that occasion, making it “judgment for defendant,” upon which Mr. O’Reilly had asked that it should be altered to “ plaintiff nonsuited.” The case had.been adjourned to allow of the point being argued. Mr. O’Reilly argued that if his Worship had power to alter the judgment in the first instance, it was quite competent for him to alter the j udgment to ‘ * plaintiff nonsuited. ” And if it was wrong for his Worship so to do, it would be a better course to allow the judgment to stand as it was—as “ case dismissed. ” Mr. O’Reilly contended that his Worship had done a very unfair thing. Mr. Purnell pointed out that Mr. O’Reilly had not given any authority as to the application put in. Mr. O’Reilly relied only on the dilemma in which his Worship was placed. If there was wrongfulness in the alteration of the judgment in the first instance, it would be equally wrong to make any farther alteration. If the action was right, it would be equally proper to alter it again. In reply to his Worship, the Clerk of the Court stated that he had at the time entered up judgment for the defendant. Mr. O’Reilly’s application was refused. Later on, in the afternoon, Mr. O’Reilly applied for a re-heaxing in the case of Meehan v. Friedlander, on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence.. His Worship agreed to hear the arguments for such a course being taken on Friday next. A BOARDING HOUSE BILL. Lucas v. Hey land. Judgment summons for L2 7s. 6d. In reply to his Worship, plaintiff said he knew that defendant had two hounds, and from the fact of the defendant being frequently intoxicated, he calculated he had the means to pay. The debtor was living at Baldwin’s Hotel ; he must be paying his way there. The debtor had neglected to pay the money. His Worship said that nothing adduced by the plaintiff proved that the debtor was in a position to pay the amount. There was no proof if a man became intoxicated that it was at his own expense ; his friends might have treated him. The defendant stated that he was not in a position to pay, nor had he any means whereby he could discharge the claim. The dogs which had been referred to were not his. He had to receive money from Friedlander Bros, and from Mr. Hayes, at Wairaate. His Worship made an order that such an amount of Friedlander Bros.’ debt as would discharge the claim of the plaintiff should be given. A DISPUTED LEASE. Stokes v. Nealas.—Mr. O’Reilly for defendant. This was an action to recover the sum of L 5. 55., being the balance of thirteen weeks good will of premises and cost of shop fixtures disposed of by the plaintiff to defendant. The sum of L 3 had been paid. An agreement had been drawn up which plaintiff stated had been signed both by himself and Nealas. The agreement had been lost, and though searched for could not be found. Under the agreement, plaintiff said, Mr. Nealas was to pay L 5 for the shop fixtures and ss. a week for the goodwill of the lease. Mr. Nealas had paid L 3, but had bluntly refused to pay any more. Alex. Buick was present when the agreement was made, and knew its contents. Wrote the document, which was signed by both Stokes and Nealas. A verbal agreement was made that the ss. a week be paid to Mr. Bullock to liquidate a claim he had on plaintiff. The money has not been paid to me, Mr. Stokes explained that he had simply placed the matter in Mr. Bullock’s hands for collection, he being a general agent. Mr. Nealas admitted an agreement, but said that under it Mr. Stokes was to leave the premises on a certain date, and had not done so. That portion of the agreement broken, he considered the whole invalid. A subsequent agreement had been made with Mr. Bullock, under which L 3 had been paid. Plaintiff was non-suited, on the ground that the suit should have been brought by Mr. Bullock. Costs, LX Is.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

Bibliographic details

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT., Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 102, 20 May 1880

Word Count

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 102, 20 May 1880