WEDNESDAY, JULY 16th
[Before His Honor Judge Ward.] PATERSON V. LUBLOW. Mr Wilding began his address to the jury at two o'clock, and spoke for half an hour, after which, His Honor submitted the issues m the caae to the jury, dividing the issues into two sections —one relating to the flax cutting contract, and the other to the accident. The jury retired to consider the issues submitted by the Judge, and returned to Court at half-past four with the issues and findings as follows:—The flax-cutting contract —1. Was any breach of the contract entered into between plaintiff and defendant committed by defendant?—-Yes, 2. To what damages, if any, is plaintiff entitled to m respect of such breach.— None. 3. Is plaintiff entitled to anything beyond amount already paid by defendant m respect of work done under contract, and if to anything, how much 1 £6 7s 6d, less £3 5s 9d-in"all £3 Is 9d. The accident—l. WasPaterson employed by defendant m the mill ?—Yes. 2. Was he, while so employed, requested by defendant to disentangle the entangled belt from the revolving shaft ? and 3. Did the accident occur m consequence of plaintiff's compliance with this request or direction. —Not agreed. 4. Was such disentangling m itself clearly a dangerous duty such as no man of ordinary prudence would undertake ?—Yes. 5. Was such disentangling such a duty as a man unskilled m machinery might undertake at the bidding of his employer without perception of its danger?— Yes. 6. To what damages, if any, is plaintiff entitled m respect of the accident'?—£s. Both counsel claimed a verdict on the findings, and His Honor reserved leave to move for judgment, so that the legal question of the verdict will require to be argued on a future day. The jury was then dismissed. FRIEDLANDER V. MARKS AND ANOTHER, In this action Max Friedlander, o Ashburton, sued Hyam Marks, of Christchurch, money lender, and his farm manager, W. T. Brown, for trespass m removing during the night of the 9th May last, 230 bags of wheat from the plaintiffs farm at Dundas. The plaintiff had let the land upon which the wheat was grown to one Edward McAnulty, and the agreement under which the tenancy was created contained a clause providing that the grain raised should not be removed from the land until the rent had been paid. McAnulty's tenancy expired on 28th February last, and as he was unable to pay his rent, he left the crop, then m stack, upon the land, as security for the j rent, m terms of his agreement. Max Friedlander took possession of the stacks and remained m possession until the night of the 9th May, when about half of it was carted away, without his knowledge or consent, by Marks' men. The plaintiff claimed £150 damages for the trespass. In his filed defence, Marks claimed to lie entitled to the grain, by virtue of an agricultural produce lien, given to him by McAnulty,. Mr Purnell for plaintiff, and Mr Russell for defendant. From Ml' Purnell's opening remarks and a quantity pjf correspondence read by him, it appeared that m the beginning of April last Friedlander wrote to Marks notifying his intention to distrain unless jth() rent was paid ; that Marks admitted the pr|.orjty of the landlord's claim to his own ; that, at MwW suggestion, and at his expense, the grain was threshed m ord,er to ascertain what the yield would be ; that the grain yielded less than was anticipated ;' and that Marks immediately, during the njfgh> time, caused about half of it to be carted ofl and converted it to his own use. Evidence to some extent was led, after both counsel had addressed the Court at great length. ' The case was ultimately adjourned until to-day at half-past one,
to admib of proof of the registration of Marks' lien being adduced. The Court adjourned at half-past six, to sit again this morning at half-past ten. The Court resumed at half-past one, to conclude the hearing of the case, adjourned from the previous day :— R. B. Mathias, Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court, proved the registration of the agricultural lien, McAnulty to Marks. Max Friedlander, re-called, said the insurance had really been charged to McAnulty, and the premium had been paid by witness. After argument by counsel His Honor gave judgment for plaintiff for 872 bushels of wheat at 2s 5d per bushel, equal to £105 7s 4d, with full costs. The promissory note which was taken by Mr Marks at the time he took the lien, not having been set out in the lien as a defeasence, the document had no greater force than if it had been unregistered, and was therefore null and void against every person but the lienor. The plaintiff being in possession of the wheat had therefore a better title than the defendant, whose claim was under an instrument which was void. The Court then adjourned until the Ist of August at eleven o'clock. ASHBURTON—THURSDAY, July 17. IN BANKRUPTCY. In re peter Williams. Motion for order of discharge. Mr Crisp for the bankrupt. The debtor was examined, and his Honor, after some severe comments on the debtor's recklessness, suspended his discharge for six months. hx rz .toseph clabk (deceased). Motion for payment of Assignee's costs out of the estate. Mr Purnell for the Assignee. Order made for payment of costs already incurred. Jn re Joseph clark. Motion for admission of proof of debt. Mr Crisp for Messrs Garrick and Co. Proof admitted. J'i re JAMES MCMORRAN WOOD. In this case it was sought to set aside two deeds executed by the bankrupt in favor of James Heseltine Whereby the former assigned to the latter certain goods, chattels, and book debts. The grounds on which the deeds were assailed were that their execution was an act of bankruptcy, being a fraudulent transfer of bankrupt's property ; that the deeds were fraudulent and void, inasmuch as they were executed with intent to defeat the claims of other creditors ; that the deeds were executed within four months of Wood's bankruptcy, and that no money was actually advanced, or goods supplied contemporaneously with or after the execution ; that the description of the chattels included in the second bill of sale w>s in- 1 sufficient. For the Assignee, Mr Wild- j ing ; for Mr Heseltine, Mr Caygill. Mr Wilding called J. McMorran Wood, butcher. He said he went into business at Tinwald in October, 1889. Bought a horse some time before for £30 from J. Heseltine, saddler, and gave him a bill for it and other moneys advanced. The bill, which was for £40, fell due in March. Saw Heseltine on the morning of the 4th, and at that time owed his creditors about £180. His freehold property was mortgaged to the Building Society for £140, and under a second mortgage to Mr Corrigan for £120. Told Heseltine the bill could not be met. that witness could not carry on without assistance ; and that the best thing to do would be to call a meeting of his creditors and divide his assets among them. On the Bth March, in the evening, signed securities to Heseltine in Heseltine's shop at Tinwald. A cheque for £55 passed through witness's hands to represent the money already received. There had been cash paid away for witness that day, but he had none at the time of signing. The book debts assigned to Heseltine witness was allowed to collect, and did collect some of them. The debts assigned were all fairly good. The value of the plant was £50, and the book debts included, the assets would represent £90. Mr Rule sued witness in ! the R.M. Court and got judgment, and Heseltine then put witness in as bailiff for him. Did not go on with the business, and Heseltine sold the plant in town taking all the articles enumerated in the security. By Mr Caygill: At the conversation with Heseltine the latter said it would be a mistake to cease business in the middle of harvest, and if witness would give him the security of the plant and book debts, he would assist him to carry on. Heseltine bought some stock for witness as soon as the arrangement was made, and three head of cattle he purchased £2 or £3 cheaper than witness could have bought on credit. Heseltine buying for cash was an advantage to witness. In telling Heseltine about his position did not mention any creditor specially, and no creditor was pressing at the time. Did not defend the action in the R.M. Court by Rule, and in arranging with Heseltine did not take the debt to Rule into consideration, because he did not expect Rule to sue. Filed in consequence of the judgment. The day the bill of sale was signed, Heseltine paid £10 to the Building Society for witness. Aftgr the Bth collected part of the book debts, and paid a portion of his own debts with the money—between £9 and £10. The three head of cattle mentioned were bought on Tuesday, the 4fch, and it was part of the arrangement that Heseltine should buy. Could not say how much of tho book debts Heseltine had collected. Mr Caygill, for Heseltine, called J. Heseltine.—The bill for £40 was not met when due, and an arrangement was made that witness should buy cattle for Wood in the open market, Wood assigning his stcck-in-trade for money advanced, and his book debts for future advances. Mr Outhbertson drew the deeds, and took them over to Tinwaid, where they were signed in witness' shop. Paid £10 to the Building Society for Wood on the same day—the Bth. Over £16 of Wood's accounts were collected by Wood and paid over to witness, out of which £9 13s 6d of debts owing by Wood were paid. Realised under the bill of sale after Rule's judgment. Was in the Court when the case was heard. By Mr Wilding : Did not remember saying at the meeting of creditors that tho bill of sale was to cover past debts, and that the cheque tor £55 given to Wood was handed back to him. Would not swear that he did or did not make that statement. His solicitor suggested witness handing a cheque for £55 to Woorl, and it was understood that it was to bo handed back to him. Mr Cuthbertson drew both deeds. Mr WildiiiG raised the question of registration of the deeds. Mr Caygill said he understood his learned friend was not going to raise any points of this kind, and ho had therefore not brought evidence of the registration. Mr Wilding did not understand, that he had done anything to lead his learned friend to such a belief. He could not forego the matter of the registration as he believed it to be defective. His Honor would adjourn the case until his return from the South, seeing there had been a misunderstanding between counsel. Case adjourned accordingly.
The sad fatality that has overtaken the wife and daughters of Mr James O'Connor, of Dublin, affords a lesson that should not . be forgotten. The five ladies met their deaths from eating poisonous mussels. It 1 is universally known that the "beards" of all mussels are poisonous, and should 1 be carefully removed before the bivalves > are cooked and eaten. Mussels are a favourite dish m some parts of New Zea land, and %vith the Maoris they are an everyday dislu
Permanent link to this item
DISTRICT COURT, Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 2467, 17 July 1890
DISTRICT COURT Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 2467, 17 July 1890
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.