DISTRICT COURT—THIS DAY

Auckland Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 268, 14 November 1887, Page 8

DISTRICT COURT—THIS DAY

)Before H. G. Seth Smith Esq., District Judge.) UNDEFENDED CASE. Cruickshank, Miller and Co. v. W. F. Portkk.—Claim £66 2s 6d, for goods supplied.—Tho debt was proved and detendant not being present, judgment was given for the plaintiff with costs. JUDGMENT SUMMONS CASE. R. Laisiiley v. Cole Bros.—Claim £36 2s.—One of the debtors was examined and sworo that since August last he had no moans wherewith to satisfy the debt. He was desirous of paying it in full, and therefore asked for three months' further grace. —Plaintiff refused to agree to another adjournment, but withdrew the case, saying that he would fake other steps against the debtors. defended cases. John and Thomas Smith v. John Pierce. —Claim £50, damages.-Mr E. T. Dufaur appeared for the piaintilis and Mr o. A. Beale for the defendant.—ln opening the case Mr Dufaur explained that tho action was brought for the _ recovery of damages lor losses sustained through the breach of an agreement made between plauitiffs and defendant. As the question of title might arise, it hau been agreed, between his learned friend and himself, that His Worship should have jurisdiction in the matter, and should merely decide whether defendant was empowered to mako tho agreement. Tho facts were that on tho 3rd of July, 1885, the piaintilis, who are two bushmen, entered into an agreement with the defendant by which they acquired from him the right to cut and remove the timber standing upon allotment 76 at Awliitu. Some threo or four months afterwards, and when plaintills had cut down somo 80,000 feet of timber, Mr Skinner stepped in and claimed tho ownership of tho allotment upon which planting had been operating, showed his title, threatened legal proceedings if plantifls did not desist, and convinced them by survey that the timber they had been cutting was his property. They had expended a considerable sum in making roads and in removing timber and all this they lost beside tho proceeds they would havo derived from the sale of tho timber—viz., 80,000 ft. which was worth 4s per 100 ft After tho arrival of Skinner's agent on tho scene tho plaintiffs communicated with defendant and in reply received from him a, letter in which he set up his title and claimed to havo purchased the property many years before from a Mrs Godye. Tho deed howevor was never registered, and Skinner, who bought subsequently, was to all intents ami purposes tho legal owner. Xhe defence raised tho question whether the plaintiffs woro justified in seeking damages m view of tho fact that thoy entered into an agreement with dofendant without making a search to see whether he had a right to sell tho property which ho contracted to sell.—Mr Boalo stated that thcro were two distinct titles to the allotment in question. Pierce was legal owner of ono half and Skinner was tho owner of tho other half on which plaintiffs were working and tho timber on which Pierce believed he had bought. Ho had paid" £400 for that right and naturally considered himself tho owner of it. Ultimately it was sold again to Skinner without any reference to the previous sale to Pierce, who had not registered any deed and Skinner took legal possession. The question was whether there was any warranty of title in the agreement between plaintiff and defendant. He simply sold what equitable right ho possess in tho property and it was therefore a case of caveat emplor. In other words the purchasers should havo made emre that the title was right by search at tho Registrar's oflico. His learned friend and himself had agreed that if Hie Worship should find the plaintiffs entitled to damages, tho measure of the damages should bo £50.—1n further explanation of the caso it was stated that both plaintiffs and defendant were (illiterate men and the following letter from defendant to tho plaintiffs was produced ns a sample of tho correspondence : " 1885 Newmarket December 3rd ;— Mr Smitli Brothers Sirs i riceved your Letter dont you take annoy Notice of annoy Notice say till them i put you thare and if tho want a lawsuit i nam quite Prepared to Meet anney one that the can geet and Mr graham told Me (name indecipherable) ought to take tho rates dont taTke Notice of anney one i ham Right.— John Peauck, Newmarket." On the back of tho sheet was the following:—"Mr Smith Brothers Pleas to take charge off My Padoc and see that No Cattle comes thare But yours and My Cattle 1 give you full Posson of all the Paddoc John" Peatice, Newmarket." Tho agreement under which Pearce bought from Mrs Gedyo was drawn up by himself, and appears never to havo been registered. It is as follows, Mrs Gedye'e name, being written at the foot in the same handwriting as the rest of the document:—" 1862. Mrs Gedye sold to John Pearce Lot 76 in the Parrish of Awitu for £400 Mr Witker hoals 2 Notes one for the Purchs of the Land to John Pearce and the other to have the deed drown in John Pearce's Name when 5 eyers was up.—sign Mary ann Gedye."—His Worship reserved judgment. This was all the business.

This morning the attention of the police was called to a nuisance which had been allowed to remain on the Ferry Tee of the Queen-street Wharf from Saturday until this morning. It appears that the North Shore Ferry Company brought over on their steamer the Eagle two or three bags of animal refuse from a>.''butcher in Devon port consigned to some person on this side. The refuse was placed on the wharf at the side of the shed and covered with a tarpaulan, but being very "high" its presence was made particular)y noticeable by the odour given off by it to the extreme annoyance of passengers. No steps were taken to remove the nuisance until tho morning, and we understand that the police intend to prosecute under the Police Offences Act wheever is to blame tor tho nuisance being allowed to remain in such a public place.