(Before R. Beetham, Esq., R.M.)

Press, Volume XLVIII, Issue 7949, 25 August 1891, Page 3

(Before R. Beetham, Esq., R.M.)

J Civil. Cases.—Mitchley v Spence, claim jQSO. Mr Weston for plaintiff, Mr Donnelly for defendant. The plaintiff, a widow, wfaa in 1885 living with defendant, whose name she had, with his consent, assumed. In January of that year she alleged that, as Maria Spence, she bought a piano from Milner and Thompson for her daughter on the time-payment system for £56, giving the lien, usual in the eystera. Mr Thomp-on while giving her possession of tike instrument asked ncr to bring her h usb&nd for the purpose pi having him joined in the bailment.' Scene days later. I laintiff brought defendant, and a fresh fa ulment was made in his name and the first cancelled. .On this agreement plaintiff p lid up with some difficulty and occasional d sfault J656 6s, the instrument was cleared, apd on December 20th, 1886, an affidavit of satisfaction of the bailment was filed. To do this, however, plaintiff had to raise J 21, which was obtained from Mcs Japhael on the joint promissory note of d sfendant and plaintiff. This was also paid OF, and the piano remained with plaintiff. 1 laintiff swore positively that all these payn ents had been made by her out of her own n oney, earned by keeping boarders and la undry work. The defendant, who was a journeyman saddler, working for several y< ars at Rangiora, did not reside with her p< rmanently, but only visited her occasionally. He never gave her money, but fr jquently got money from her, and very of;en "knocked her about." About the

m iddle of July last he came to the house add remained three weeks. On August t, after borrowing a shilling from hsr, he went away, and had not been tl iere since. On that day, however, he sent G. H. Parker, bailiff, who seized the piano, conveyed it to Tonks, Norton and Co.'s auction foomß, put it in for sale, and obtained an advance of JBIO on it for the defendant. In his evidence the bailiff said tlhat before the seizure he searched the registry, and finding- that there had »een a bailment in defendant's name Md also the affidavit of satisfaction, he believed the piano to be ;he property of defendant, and took his prdera. .Plaintiff now .claimed £40, the ralue of the instrument, or its restoration. The case of the defendant rested on the evilence which had been called by the other lide. In examination, the defendant swore ;hat he had regularly supplied plainiff with money for her maintenance n houses which were always taken in his name. He bad given her for several years it least £1 per week. He bad been con- j suited about the purchase of the instru- : nent, bad agreed to it, and it had been paid or solely out of his money. He had fremently sent and handed to plaintiff special 'urns to make up the payments when in trrear, and had joined her in the loan from Raphael. Although he had only twice actually carried the payments to Milner and Thompson, all were derived immediately (from him. There was no evidence outside (the parties as to their financial arrangements. After the evidence as to the surrounding facts, Mr Donnelly submitted that , the bailment in the absence of any proof of ; subsequent transfer of the piano was inde- < feasible as to the property of defendant in it. iHe pointed out also the improbability of defendant in many years of his intimate relations with the plaintiff not having contributed to her purse. This being so, and | there being only oath against oath, the I man's statement was a.% worthy of credence jas the woman's. Mr Weston having replied, : his Worship said that, though by itself the bailment was good, yet viewing the surround- ■ ing he had nodoubt the woman had bought and paid for the piano. The I judgment was that defendant should return the piano or pay plaintiff £35. No costs I were allowed. Corrigan v claim IJB4B Iβ 6d, for board and lodging for defendant and bis son and for grazing » horse. isirHoban appeared for plaintiff. The deifendant denied the main portion of the debt, and the case was adjourned till September 3rd, for the attendance of a witness for defendant. Judgments went for plaintiffs by default' with costs, in Rose v Browning, £2 10s; and Smith v Light and Lewsey, J835. In the case of Dudley v Kinley a rehearing was granted for September 3rd. Khan and Co. v Abdul Boram was adjourned till August