R.M. COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 230, 29 September 1888, Page 8

R.M. COURT.

DEFENDED CASES.

Rew v. PAfeKES.— This was an action in, •which the plaintiff claimed £6 3s 3d, the price pi goods, part of whifeh were supplied to the defendant's wife prior to her marriage with the defendant. Mr Buchanan appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Brassey for the defendant. The defence was that the goods were supplied on the credit of Mr. Regan, but the Magistrate held that the goods supplied prior to the defendant's marriage were purchased by Mrs Skillen.now thedefendant's wife, and that the defendant was liable for the debts of his wife contracted prior to her marriage, and that in regard to the goods supplied since the marriage the ■ defendant was also liable. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for £6 3a 3d and £1 11s costs.

Robson v. Gabriel Lewis, claim for return of a case of drapery and damages for its detention. Mr Theo. Cooper (instructed by MrE. Cooper) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Edwin Hesketh (instructed by Messrs Hughes and George) appeared for the defendant. Mrs Winifred Robson, the plaintiff, claimed that a case of drapery, valued at'£6o,and in thepossesaion of Mr G. Lewis, was her property, having been sold to her on the 20fch August, for the sum of £50, by Messi-3 Thompson Brothers, formerly in business at Waoganui. On the 27th August Thompson Bros/assigned their estate to Mr G. Lewis and Mr Tewsley (of Sargood and Co.) for the benefit of their creditors. The case of drapery in question was then at the Thames, in charge of Mr; McGregor, who subsequently delivered it to Mr Lewis, on behalf ■of the trustees. Mrs Robson then demanded it from Mr Lewis, .who .refused to give it up, • claiming it as the property of the trustees. Mrs Bobsort was examined by Me Cooper, and subjected to a lengthy crbss^exauririation by Mr, Hesketh, the defence alleging that the transaction between Mrs Robson and. Thompson Brothers was not a honci Jlde sale. Mr Lewisf the defendant, ndmittedtJtet the case in'question was in his possession, and HS produced the deed, of assignment under, which he^' on behalf-of the trustees, claimed to hold it. Mr Hesketh moved for a nonsuit, but His Worship held that there was a'.case/'fpi' -the- defendant tp^answer. For the"defence fcjnaiies-: Ocean TKbmpsoir gave evidence. Counsel addressed the Court, after which His. Worship gave judgment for the plain tiff for £55, to be reduced to £5-if the .case was returned. -> Mr Hesketh submitted' 'that the defendant being merely a trustee, the plaintiff should not be allowed costs. Mr' Cooper contended that every necessary opportunity had been given to the defendant to giv,e up the case^ before action.but he had chosen to rely on his legal position. His .Worship ..sajd1 he could not deprive the plaintiff of her costs, and cost 3 were ftherfifcre. allowed at the sum of £6 13a. , _^___