Resident Magistrate’s Court.
ASHBURTON.— -Friday, Oct*. 22,1880.
(Before Mr. F. Guinness, R.M.) CIVIL CASES.
Trustees of Edmisfcou and Go. v. Robinson —Claim L 34 12s. lOd. Mr. O’Reilly for plaintiffs ; judgment fgr amount claimed and costs, LI 13s. Cass v. Holmes.—Claim Ll 9 18s. 7d. Mr. Branson for plaintiff; Mr. O’Reilly for defendant.
Francis Cass, sworn, stated he was. a farmer, living at Wakanui. He had been employed by the defendant to do threshing work. Holmes engaged, me to do the work for him. Witness produced the bagman’s book which showed that work of threshing had been done. Defendant did not tell witness that he was doing the work for someone else. Witness did not know defendant was acting as agent for any one else. Holmes is living in the same house with a woman who is called Mrs Holmes. Defendant has paid me sums of L 7 10s., and LlO. The former was given in cash, the latter by cheque. Forgot who was the drawer of the cheque. Mr. O’Reilly objected tocertain amounts which the other side had given his client credit for.
Witness, cross-examined by Mr. O’Reilly —The L 7 10s. was given, some in,notes and soiqe in silver, in the presence of the; hands on the farm where Holmes lives at Wakanui. I received the LlO from my wife, who had obtained it from Holmes. 1 Defendant ordered me to thresh the grain. Believe I was at home when Holmes told me to undertake the work.
Mr. O’Reilly declined to accept the setoff put in by plaintiff. Witness, cross-exarainedbyMr. O’Reilly, remembered having a conversation with Mr. Jameson, at which Mr. Friedlandor remarked that Holmes was “ all right,” and understood from that remark that he was all right in a pecuniary sense. Mary A. Cass, wife of last witness, remembered getting a LlO note from Mr,; Holmes. He and his wife were present; the note was on the table, and Holmes said, “ 1 hat’s for you. ” Holmes and his wife have been living in the Wakanui district for the past two years, and it has been the general impression until lately that they were legally man and wife. Holmes has land in the district and they are living on it. Mrs. Holmes told me the land belonged to her. Only heard recently that the woman who went by the name of Mrs. Holmes was really Mrs. Haynes. _ ;■ By Mi-. O’Reilly—lt is about six months since Mrs. Holmes told me that the land belonged to her. David McHolm. labourer at Wakariufk' remembered doing, some work for Cass on Holmes’ land. During the whole time Holmes never said for whom the work was being done. Have worked for Holmes on his property at Wakanui. Defendant lives with a woman in Wakanui, and he had always addressed her as Mrs. Holmes. Defendant Las paid me for work done bn his property. Richard Higgs sworn—l am a laborer living at Wakanui. Have been employed by Mr. Cass. Holmes came to Cass’ place for a machine. Worked on Holmes’ farm but he did not tell me for whom 1 was working. I was carrying water for the machine, which was worked by Mr. Cass. Have been employed by Holmes, and he has paid me. David M‘Holm, recalled, stated that for work done for Mr. Holmes he had been paid by the latter. Mr. O’Reilly, for the defence, stated that Holmes was merely manager for Mrs. Haynes, at a salary, and that Holmes had no interest in the property whatever. He would like an adjournment for the purpose of obtaining corroborative evidence from Mr. Jameson.
Mr. Branson would strenuously object to an adjournment. Mr. O’Reilly raised a nonsuit point, there being no date to the summons, and hence the Court had no jurisdiction. Mr. Branson submitted that possibly the original summons might differ from the copy which had been put in, and objected to a nonsuit unless the original summons were produced. ' His Worship said he had no course to adopt but to nonsuit the plaintiff with costs, as there was an evident laches on the part of the persons who drew up the summons.
Mr. Branson said the case was one of many in which persons whom ho characterised as “ legal poachers ” led people into difficulties.
Mr. O’Reilly—Cheap law. His Worship—Which sometimes be. comes dear law. '
In the case of Holmes v. Cass, Mr. Branson asked for an adjournment as he wished the two cases to be heard on- thesame day. His Worship granted the adjournment, but without costs, as he considered the two cases were brought where one might have been sufficient.
After argument between his Worship and Mr. O’Reilly, the professional fee was allowed.
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.
Use these buttons to limit your searches to particular dates, titles, and more.
Print, save, zoom in and more.