Article image
Article image
Article image
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.


ASHBURTON. —Friday, Sept. 10,1880,

(Before Mr. E. Guinness, R.M.) JUDGMENT SUMMONS.

Friedlander Bros. v. Bryant. Mr. O’Reilly, for defendant, called Mr. 0. 0. Hurrell, who proved that the defendant had that morning made a declaration of insolvency. Mr. O’Reilly argued that on a declaration of bankruptcy being filed, all property of the debtor is vested in the Clerk of the District Court. In this case there were no effects. Mr. Hugo Friedlander, who represented the plaintiffs, called Mr. G. Willcocks, who gave evidence that the defendant had spent a deal of money in drink while witness was proprietor of the Wheatsheaf Hotel. His Worship said that from the fact of the defendant having filed a declaration in bankruptcy, and there being'no effects in the estate, he could make no order in the case. A FENCING CASEi Mrs. Gibson sued George Cole for LG 125., being the half cost of erecting a fence which divided the properties of the parties. Mr. Branson for plaintiff, and Mr. O’Reilly for defendant. A considerable part of the morning w r as taken up with this case. The weight of evidence went to show that the fence instead of being erected had only undergone repairs, and these not of the most substantial character. His Worship considered that the fence was not a sufficient one within the meaning of the Ordinance, and gave judgment for the defendant, with costs LI 7s. EAKAlA.—Thursday, Sept. 9. Before Mr. F. Guinness, R.M., and Messrs. Mackie, and Holmes, J. P.’s police Cases. W. Legerwbod was fined 403. for two unregistered dogs in his possession. Win. Fergusson was fined 20s. for one dog in hia possession—the fine to be remitted if he can pi’oduce a receipt for previous registration by next Court day. D. Dolan was fined 205.-for one unregistered dog. R. Taylor, P. O’Malley, W. Doherty. J. Gaarder, W. G. Kemp, W. Hartnell, and ,

W. Kemble, were each fined ss. for cattle wandering at large in the township. ■ ASSAULT. ’ .‘ Patrick O’Keefe v. Dennis Murphy. Plaintiff accused defendant of ill-treating plaintiff's son, a boy about eight, yeairs of age. Murphy said that O’Keefe’s : boy, with two other little boys, had taken an old horse of his and were all three riding it about in a cruel manner. Defendant went after the boys, and when they saw him coming, they jumped off the horse, and in trying to get away O’Keefe fell on the gravel, when he must have received the cut on his face. , He admitted striking the boy on the back with a stick of broom, but swore he did not strike him on the face. His Worship said that by defendant’s own admission he had struck the boy, in doing which he had taken the law in bis own bands. Defendant would be fined ss. and costs. CIVIL CASES. Lawrie and Son v. A. Mason. Claim Ll 4 13s. 7d. Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs LI Is. Chas. Lake v. J. H. Sharp—For the plaintiff, Mji\ Ireland ; for the defendant, Mr. Parnell. This case had been adjourned from last Court day, and was a claim for work done by plaintiff and for livery and carriage hire. Defendant put in a set-off, claiming the value of a saddle which had been borrowed by plaintiff 1 s son and never returned, and for a wheelbarrow which had been borrowed and never returned, and several other items. Both sides admitted several of the amounts charged, but a good deal of time was taken up' a? to the identity of the pigs which had destroyed a fence, for the repairing of which plaintiff claimed. His Worship said this was a case which never ought to have been brought into Court. He would give judgment for plaintiff for LI Os. 95., costs, LI 9s. 6d.. .

Wm.' Hussey" v. Chas. Lake, Jun.— Claim L 7 for a plough sold to defendant. Plaintiff said he sold Lake the plough as it was lying at the blacksmith’s shop at Sherwood. Defendant saw the plough and examined it. He had two days to examine it before the purchase. It was a double-furrow plough. Defendant kept the plough for about six weeks, When he returned it to the blacksmith’s with one wheel broken and the skeath gone. He had applied to defendant for the money, but had not been paid. The plough was in a fit state for work. Chas. Lake, jun., in his evidence, admitted having made a bargain for the plough at L 7, but after using the plough for a fortnight he returned it. as it was not worth the money. Judgment for amount and costs. Chas. Lake, jun., v. W. Sutton.— Claim L 7 for carting. For plaintiff, Mr. Ireland ; for defendant, Mr. Purnell. Plaintiff, sworn, said—l was employed carting for Sutton. He had taken a contract for Ll 4. I was to help him and was to reeeive L 7 for my work. I have rendered my account several times. The account produced is mine. I have written to Sutton requesting payment. I have never received L 92 7s. from Sutton. Wm. Sutton, sworn, said—-I-.was a carrier. I employed plaintiff to do carting for me. I have paid him money on account at different times. On the 7th of April last we had a final settlement, when he gave me a receipt for L 92 7s. which was what his work amounted to. Plaintiff has never worked for me since. His signature is on the stamp.: He wrote it in my house in the presence of my wife. In answer to his Worship, plaintiff said Mr. T. A. Winter wrote out the account for him, the particulars being given from memory, as plaintiff’s note-book had been lost. Judgment for defendant and costs. Saunders v. Learmouth. —Mr. Purnell for plaintiff, Mr. Ireland for defendant. Plaintiff, living on the south side of the Ralaia, and defendant, residing on the north of that river, had consented to have the case tried at Rakaia. Counsel for the defendant now objected that the case was out of his Worship’s jurisdiction, and that his client was not bound by the consent he had given—be wished his Worship to make a note of his objection. His Worship ruled that he had jurisdiction, and the case proceeded. William Saunders, sworn, said—l was in partnership with Mr. Irvine, at North Rakaia, as Saunders and Irvine. We dissolved partnership. The household furniture was my own property. When I left the place I sold a portion of my furniture to Irvine and Learmouth, who, succeeded Saunders and Irvine. The unsold articles I left in their possession, as my house was not ready to receive them. I went for the goods about a month ago. I saw Mr. Learmouth, the defendant, and asked for the things. Defendant said he could not give them to me without the authority from Mr. Irvine, who was away. I wrote to Mr. Learmouth for the goods, telling him if they were not delivered to him’ I would take legal proceedings for their recovery. Defendant knew which were my goods. He was present when they Ayere selected. Walter Learmouth, sworn, said —I am defendant in this case. lam not a partner in the firm of Irvine and Learmouth. My father is a partner in that firm. He resides in England. lam manager for Irvine and Learmouth. I remember Mr. Saunders coming to demand certain goods. I told him I could not give them up without an authority from Mr. Irvine. I said if he would produce evidence of ownership I should be most happy to give them up. After counsel on both sides had addressed the Bench, his Worship said he had no doubt that plaintiff had clearly proved his property in these goods. They would have to be returned to plaintiff, or the sum of L3O paid as' compensation.

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

MAGISTERIAL., Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 151, 11 September 1880

Word Count

MAGISTERIAL. Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 151, 11 September 1880