AUCKLAND DISTRICT. COURT. Monday. [Before his Honor Mr. Judge Beckham.]

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXIII, Issue 3057, 14 May 1867, Page 6

AUCKLAND DISTRICT. COURT. Monday. [Before his Honor Mr. Judge Beckham.]

His Honor Mr. Judge Beckham entered Court at half-past tea o'clock this morning. | QUARTIER Y. MMNNIS. Action to recover £74 6s. 2d., amount of promissory notes. Mr. Weston appeared for plaintiff. Mr. Vernon, sequestrator of estate of the latejMr. Aurele Quartier, deposed that the promissory notes were unpaid by defendant. ! ' Thomas Burre, accountant to the late* !M,r. Quartier, deposed that defendant was indebted to Mr. Quartier the amount of the two promissory notet the subject of the acbion. | The defendant did not appear. '•' ! , Judgment was given for plaintiff, with £5 18s. costs. ' , I CROTOKSHANK AND 00. Y. MCDOTJGALL. . Action to recover £27 125. lid., amount due] for goods sold and delivered. -*- 1 Mi. Hesketh appeared for plaintiffs. J Richard Garlick, accountant, deposed that | the goods had been supplied, and the amount sought to be recovered was due. ■ ; Judgment for plaintiffs, with £4 9s. costs. ( CBUIOESHANK AND CO. Y. HENRY MOSS. j» , , Action to recover £21 6s. 6d., amount of promissory note with interest. ! Mr. Hesketh appeared for plaintiffs. ' [Robert Gordon Macdonald deposed that the note was given by defendant to plaintiff, and had not been paid. ' j Garlick deposed that the sum claimed yasdue to plaintiffs. { ' Judgment for plaintiffs, with £5 193. costs. j RUTHERFORD Y. COCHRANB. Action to recover £47 10a., rent and insurance; Mr. MacCormiok appeared for plaintiff. James ltufcherford, Pukekohe, deposed that the' amount claimed was due. Judgment for plaintiff, with £5 19s, costs. ROSSBLL Y. MCLITER. Action to recover £23 11s. 10d., for goods supplied. I Mr. J. B. Russell appeared for plaintiff. ! Mr. Thomas Russell proved the debt. ' Judgment for plaintiff, with £5 ss. cost*. GORST Y. THOBTJRN; \ Action to recover £25, due as interest. . Mr. Hill, jun., appeared for plaintiff. [ Mr. Fenton, plaintiffs agent, deposed that the ! amount was still owing to the plaintiff as interest Judgment for plaintiff, with £5 ss. coats. W. H. J. SEF.FERN AND WIPE Y. HENRY ELLIS, Action to recover £50, amount due for rent of Is nd in Victoria-street, held under lease. Mr. Hill, jun,, appeared for plaintiffs. ' Mr. Seffern proved the amount claimed as due. Judgment for plaintiffs, with £4 14s. costs. THOMAS Y. SIMPSON,. This case was adjourned until next Court-day. ! EXECUTORS OF KtBKWOOD, Y. DALEY. j Action to recover £87 10s. 3d., for goods sold apd delivered. j The debt was proved, and judgment was given for plaintiffs, with £6 12s. 6d. costs. ; ' FISHER AND CO. Y. OLOVER AND MCKENZIE. | ' Action to recover, £74 6s. 3d. for goods supplied. AJr. Hesketh appeared for plaintiffs. j Mr. Fisher proved the "debt. I ' Judgment for plaintiffs, with £6 6s. costs. ! Defended Cases. t MORTON JONES Y. RICHARD MARSHALL. j An action to recover £32 11s., amount alleged [to be due for use and occupation of an allotment for six months. > • ' ■ I • Messrs. Wynn and James Russell appeared for plaintiff; and Messrs. Gillies and Hill, jun., tor defendant. ■ , , / J Morton Jones deposed : In 1865 I was a partner with Mr. Knapp. 1 purchased the leasehold of the property, the subject of the present action, at auction from Mr. Richard Ridings. 'I had several conversations with defendant afterwards, who wished to lea^o it from me. Eveatually [ did lease it to him, andi a memorandum was made at the time. (Memorandum produced.) It was made by my partner, Mr. Knapp, in the presence of Mr. Marshall and myself. Mr. Marshall gave me a cheque for £25. The memo-, randum is not signed by the defendant. I , Mr. Gillies said the memorandum was inadmissible, inasmuch as it was not signed <by Mr. Marshall, or by any one having a written authority from him jto do so. | Mr. Wynn said it was sufficient when Mr. Marshall's name was signed in his presence by Mjr. Knapp, and he paid half a year's rent at the time, i The evidence was allowed to proceed, subject fco the objection raised. J Witness : Defendant paid another £25 after being summoned to pay. Afterwards he said he would give it up, as he was unable to pay the rent. ' I said I would summons him, and he said he would try and get out of it. The allotment has been much changed by being filled up with earth carted there. I don't know who did it. The sum of £32 10s. was due me six months ago -on 10th September, 1866. ' Cross-examined : I think he has paid the city taxes. I don't know whether he has used it in any way from lOfch March, 1866, to lObh September, 1866. There was no difficulty in obtaining the lease that I know of. I don't recollect Mr. Hughes saying that Mr. Marshall would have nothing to do with the allotment as he could not get the lease. The papers were with Mr. Jackson. I did not givje defendant a lease, nor authorised my solicitor to do so. I don't recollect Mr. Hughes saying that Mr. Marshall would give up all connection with the matter, as he could not get the lease. ] Richard Marshall deposed : I did agree with Mr. Jones about the allotment. I was not present when the memorandum was made in the book. I did sign a book. I gave a cheque for £25 to bind the bargain as to the lease. It was no part of the rent. I got a receipt. When I got a lease, that sum was to go in reduction of rent. I was robbed out of it and another £25 which the Court obliged me to pay. I was in occupation about three months. I allowed some soil to be put into it to fill it up. Cross-examined : I employed Mr. Hughe3 to get the lease. I applied to Mr. Jones several times for the lease. Mr. Jones said I was due half a year's rent, and said if I did not Uke to pay the rent I could give it Up. I was told there was no lease in Mr. Jackson's office. Mr. Hughes and I afterwards went to the office, and no lease could be found. We went to Mr. Jones, and Mr. Hughes told him twice that I weuld have nothing to do with the allotment. No lease has been offered to me since that time. I was not in the occupation of the property. _ i . • j Re-examined : I neve* saw a lease produced concerning the? property in question. (Deed proJ duced. ) I never saw this deed before. Charles Knapp deposed that the defendant leased the allotment in question, and a memorandum (produced) was made by witness ■ after defendant ga'v( the cheque for £25, the first half-year's rent. Defendant did not sign any book. Witness was Mr.! Jones's partner at that time. ' j William A. Hay deposed that the lease was proj duced on the third occasion that Mr. Hughes and MrJ Marshall called at Mr. Jackson's office. Mr.' Jackson produced it himself, and said he would not* allow the deed to go out of his possession. It was the deed produced in Court. The deed was registered,, and witness Bhowed the entry to Mr. Hughes and! Mr. Marshall in the Registration Office about the end of July, 1865. It was not registered in March! or beginning of April. ii , ' Mr. Wynn asked that Mr. Knapp should bemade a plaintiff in the case. Mr. Gillies said the plaintiff had no right to have Mr. Knapp added a"s a plaintiff, the rule of the Court, not having been adhered to. His Honor Said the adding of the name would alter the features of the case. Mr, Gillies said he had no objection to the adding of the name, if the plaintiff closed his' case; ' Mr. Wynn said the plaintiff's case was. closed. Mr. Gillies submitted that the plaintiff must be nonsuited, and spoke for some length in' support of his argument. ' S. E. Hughes, a solicitor practising in Auckland, < deposed that he had been employed by defendant to * procure a leaie for him from ,the plaintiffs. He had asked the latter where he could obtain the necessary < particulars, and he was referred to Mr. Jackson, who referred him back to the plaintiffs, who after searching stated that they had not the deed in their poisession, but that Mr, Jackson 1 must have it. Mr. Jackson then referred the witness to the Deed Office for all particulars, andjon searching there he (witness) found that the plaintiffs possessed no registered title. Told the defendant of it, who was very anxious to obtain the lease, and went with him to Messrs. Jacksou and Russell's office. Saw there Mr. Jackson and Mr. Hay, and they said they could not find any title, but they would make a more diligent search. Had let the matter rest for a week or so, and again Treat to Mr. Jackson's' office, but with no better success. Then went with the defendant to see Mr. Jones, and witness told him that defendant would have nothing to do with the land, as they could show no title for it. The whole matter extended over Bor 10 weeks. The deed now produced witness had never seen until the present day. Had never made any farther inquiry from the plaintiffs or Mr, Jwkiou,

after giving them notice that the defendant would have nothing to do with the land* Some three or four months afterwards the registration of the deed was pointed out to him, and he had said that it must be a new register. Cross-examined by Mr. Wynn ; I positively swear that Mr. Jackson never showed me any deed connected with this property, nor did h.9 flay to me, " You can take extracts from the deeds, but you must not take them out of the office." - After adjournment, Mr. Gillies having addressed the Bench for the defence, Mr. Wynn briefly replied. His Honor reserved judgment until Monday next. WAITK V.'DALTON. Claim of £27 ss. lid. Mr. Brookfield for plaintiff, and Mr. Wynn for the defence. , Mr. Wynn argued that, from the faot of ;h« plaintiff being, an insolvent, he had no power to sue at' all. It remained for the sequestrator of the estate to. recover. ; Mr. Brookfield said that under the Act it would be necessary for the assignee to elect whether, they will proceed or not. , ' ; r The, case rras adjourned until 'Monday next. MA.OHA.TTIE Y. OBAHJ. „.,,At the request of Mr. Wynri, who appeared for th« plaintiff, this case was adjourned until Monday next. " , „, • ' , RICHARDSON AJXD RHODES Y. .MOKBNHB. . Claim of £44 7s. ■ ' '" *; ' . ' This was an adjourned Case which had been partially heard on the 24th April, and waa adjourned for the production of plan^. , |t (■. , , ■» '„ 1 Mr. ' Weston and Mr. Hiu" r appeared, for jthe plaintiffs,' and' Mr. J. B. Russell and Mr. Brookfield for de'f endanti l ■ " ' } ' t Hector McKeuzie deposed ■ that he gave the specifications in question to, Mr. McKay. He believed tbey'weye^artially'ip'st) but thought Mr, Mc£ay had a 1 portion of them! * - f ' i " Angus McKay deposed that he was a contractor, residing at Rangiriri, and had come from that place , to the trial. He had. a portion of the specifications in his possession, relating to the erection of ttyree bridges on the'Waikato. , • • Daniel Beere deposed that he was engineer of jthe; works in question, and produced the original specifications of the bridges received from Mr. Weaver, 'the Provincial Engineer-in-Chief. . ', . Daniel Richardson' deposed that he was a Subcontractor under Mr. McKenzie for the erection of • bridges. He did not erect the slabs and hand-rails, • because it was no part of his contract to do it. iHe had asked the defendant if himself and parfjner should dp the work, but he said he would get it done. It ,was the best "paying part of the job, and wia a losVto them not to do it. , At this" stage the case was adjourned until phe next Court-day, in order to amend the plea. ' The 6b'urt then rose. ' - I