AUCKLAND DISTRICT COURT. Friday. [Before his Honor Judge Beckham.] JUDGMENT.—FORD V. FERNANDEZ.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXII, Issue 2828, 18 August 1866, Page 5

AUCKLAND DISTRICT COURT. Friday. [Before his Honor Judge Beckham.] JUDGMENT. — FORD Y. FERNANDEZ.

His Honor stated the facts connected with this case, which was an action of damages for £100 for false imprisonment, and was reported on last Tuesday's paper. A case was cited for defendant, but he thought it was somewhat different from the present. In that case the policeman took the plaintiff into custody from information he received, and from answers to questions put by him ; in the present case, the policeman said, " I took the plaintiff iuto custody ac defendant's instance." In a case of that sort, the measure of damage must be measured by the positions of the parties, The Court thought £25 would be a proper amount for defendant to pay. Judgment for plaintiff, £25. FERNANDEZ Y. BOLOTTS. Mr, Wynn for plaintiff; Mr. Gillies and Mr. Macdonalkl for defendant. Claim, £48, on a promissory note. Mr. Wynn, in stating the case, said that the promissory note was given to a Mr. Haiues for a gambling transaction ; and although the original holder could not sue, a third party might, who had taken the note without knowing that it had been received in that way. Mr. Gillies said there was no use in going into the evidence, as, admitting all the plaintiff alleged, still there was no cause of action. Mr. Gillies was proceeding to argue the question of law, when Mr. Wynn accepted & nonsuit. SWANSON Y. WALTERS. Mr. J. Russell for plaintiff; Mr. Wynn for defendant. Claim, £24 6s. 10tl., on a promissory note, given under the circumstances disclosed in the evidence. William Swanson deposed : The defendant, James Walters, endorsed this promissory note for £22 to me. I saw him write it. The note was payable in ten days. It is overdue. I gave for the note a cheque for £22, which 1 produce from the bank. Defendant told me his name was James. When the note became due I presented it, and it was dishonoured. I gave notice of the dishonour to Walters, by posting a notice to the address he gave me. (Notice produced.) It was posted on the 24th of August, 1865, to James Walters, Cabbage-tree Swamp, Auckland. It was some time after sent back as an unclaimed letter. Cross-examined by Mr. Wynn : I posted the letter on the evening of the day the bill became due. I believe the defendant was lending his name to get the money for his brother. John Walters brought the note on tha evening before, endorsed by one Seymour Wells, but I would not give him any money. On the following day it was endorsed by the present defendant. ' For the defence, Mr. Wynn called James Walters, who deposed : I did endorse that bill to Mr. Svranson. I was working for my brother, and when I put my nnme to the bill I did not know that it made me responsible for the money. My brother gave me the bill to take to Mr. Swanson, but I said nothing about putting my name to it. I will swear that I did not know that the writing of my name made me responsible. Mr. Swanson did not tell me so. His Worship said there could be no doubt that the plaintiff looked for payment from the present defendant. Plaintiff took a note of defendant's address, and the cheque was made out in his name. Judgment for plaintiff.

WEBB Y. MARKS. Mr. J. Russell for plaintiff; Mr. Brookfield for defendant. Claim, £50, damages for taking certain gasfittings, &c. Samuel Henry Webb deposed : I am the owner of a building in Wellesley-street, commonly called Webbs Music Saloon. I let those premises to one Edward Mooney, under a lease (produced). In that lease there is a right of re-entry in case of non-pay-ment of rent. I re-entered the premises, in consequence of non-payment of rental, on the 28th. of April last. I got a padlock put on the door. I took possession of the premises. On the 30th of April I saw that the door had been broken open. I observed that the gas fittings had all been taken away. I went to Mr. Marks 's house, and asked whether he had taken them. He said he had. The value of the gas fittings was £25, and some other damage was done. The gas fittings taken away were substituted for some which were in the place when Mooney took possession. William James Marks deposed to having opened the door, and taken away the gas fittings he put up for Mr. Mooney. John Somerville, in the employment of Mr. Webb, deposed as to the fastening of the door, and to it having been broken open. Mr. Marks was examined for the defence, and deposed that he had put up gas fittings for Mooney to the amount of" £l3. There were some old gas fi tting 3 there worth £3 10s. Subsequently, Mooney told witness that he could not pay for the fittings, as a law had been passed to prevent dancing. Witness asked if he could take away the gas fittings, and Mooney said he might, and brought the key. When he got to the place, he found a padlock had been put on. He opened the door without unnecessary violence, and. took away the fittings, replacing the old ones. He did not know who fastened the door. Edward Mooney deposed that he gare Marks permission to take away the gas fittings while he was in possession. premises were occupied by witness up to the 22ud or 23rd of April. Mr. Webb had never made any demand for rent, but twice asked in the strset if witness had any money he could give him. Mr. Webb never gave any notice that he was going to re-enter. Mr. Brookfield argued that Mr. Webb was himself the trespasser, as he had not given the proper notice.

Judg.nent wa» given for the defendant, on tbi ground that plaintiff had not taken the proper atepi to re-enter. MILLB Y. LAZiJRtJS AND LEVI. Mr. Macdonald appeared for the plaintiff; Mr, Wynn for Lazarui, and Mr. J. B. Ruiaell for Levi Claim, £22 18s. 9d., for goods. John James Mills depoied : I am a genera dealer. In March or April last year defendants cami to me and asked me if I could supply furniture fur a boarding-house. They said they wanted about £21 worth of furniture for a man named Schlossman. ] was to be paid by instalments at the rate of from £2 to £3 per week. A list was brought by Schloss man, but the goods were furnished on defendants' security. I told them the list would amount to £50 and defendants said, "AH right, let him have them." In cross-examination, witness deposed that abov< £25 of 'the money was paid by Schlossman, his wife, or daughter. For the defence, Konigsberg Lazarus deposed thai he never saw the plaintiff until after Schlossmai had got the furniture. No claim had been made by plaintiff till two months ago, after Sohlossman had left the province. Witness never gave any authoiitj) for the delivery of the furniture. In cross-examination witness admitted that he had said to Mills that, if he would let Schlossman have £25 worth of furniture, he and Mr. Levi would see him paid. Mr. Levi was examined, and stated that the guarantee was only to the extent of £25. Judgment was given for the defendants. BARRHANS Y. BALNBATIS. Mr. Gillies for plaintiff; Mr. Brookfield for defendant. Claim, £40, for trover of cattle, alleged to have been illegally seized by one of the Sheriffs bailiffs, under a writ of fi. fa. issued against one Mosheim, father-in law of the plaintiff. Mr. Brookfield raisedapreliminary objection to the jurisdiction on the ground that if the Sheriff, in hit official capacity, committed any illegal act, he wai responsible to the Supreme Court alone. Mr. Gillies contended that under the District Courts Act no privilege was allowed. The words were that "no privilege shall be allowed to solicitors or any other person." That made the exception quite universal. , Mr. Brookfield said that the exception was to persons of lower rank than solicitors, while the Sheriff was of higher rank. It wai agreed, on the part of the defendant, to waive the point, and go on with the case. Christopher Hammond, assistant sheriff's bailiff, deposed that on the 26th of April he seized six head of cattle at Papatoitoi, under the authority of Mr. Vernon. He got an order from Mr. Vernon to seize all goods belonging to Mr. Mosheim. The document under which he seized was signed by Mr. Vernon, as assignee of the estate of Mosheim. In cross-examination witness said that he had no instructions from the Sheriff, and he made no return to the- Sheriff. Henry Vernou deposed that he, as assignee in Mosheim's estate, gave Hammond instructions to seize Mosheim's effects. The cattle were sold by auction, and the proceeds handed to Mr. Porter, Inspector in Bankruptcy. t Mr. Gillies said that, if these officers had given the information previously that they had given now, the action would not have been brought against the Sheriff. He would accept a nonsuit. Mr. Brookfield said that the Sheriff was naturally annoyed when he was served with a summom, with* out any previous communication, and had then given orders to the bailiffs not to give any information. A nonsuit was recorded. This concluded the business.