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

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXIV, Issue 3400, 9 June 1868, Page 4

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

IONST Y. ABTHtTR AND SON. In this cmp, which was heard l»«t sitting-day, hit Honor gave judgment for the plaintiff for the sum of . £5. The question oi coats waa adjourned until next , ■itttog«d»y. . ->.-./,

JUDGMENTS FOR PLAINTIFFS. Meyer v. Fcasor, £57 55, ; liuuter and Son v. Townl-y, £21 2*. 76., for goois nupplied.

ADJOURNED OASE, McCaul v. Stewart, £50 Ba. Mr. Brookfield for plaintiff, and Mr. Wynn for defendant. HOWABD M.ETOHBR Y. FBIDXRIOK JAMBS SOMEBVILLE. — AVTZkh CASK. This was an appeal from a decision given in the Warden's Court on the Bth May last-, in whioh Somerville,thm plaintiff, claimed to have established his title to a sleeping half-shara in the flomewardr Bound Claim, ovrned by Fletoher, The decision appealed against was, "That the plaintiff is entitled to half of the full share, and the half of the dividend", from October 2, 1867." Messrs. MacCormick, Maodonald, and Hesketh appeared for the appellant ; and Messrs. Gillies aad Dodd for the respondent. Mr. MacCormick said that thi* case -was brought under the Bth lection of the Goldfields Act, and that notice of appeal had been giren, and the summjoni properly served upon the respondent. In a case of that kind— which was of the nature of a rale nisi, i and there being no mean* 1 of bringing before that .Coarbthe erideuce taken at the Court below — it w» 8 . unnecessary for the appellant to open the o»se by bringing evidence in support of bis application; but it devolved upon the respondent, in Snswer to the summons issued, to show cause why, the decision appealed against'sboulr] no^be'r^versed! 'I hat Cojurt had n«t power to deoide the dispute, but it lay with it to commit the case to be reheard at the Court below. ( 1 he learned counsel quoted several preoedents in support of his observations.) ! Mr. Gilkes contended that "ttie v view' of the ojase embodied in his learned friend's remarks reduced the matter to a mere absurdity. " Thdy had been called .upon 4<» show cause why the decision of another Court should not be reversed, .when"rbally [no evidence had been brough Vat all 'impeaching that decision. - The Warden was a 'magistrate bound by no rule in law or equity so long as he kept within the provisions of 'the Gold fields Act; consequently his Honor could not reverse ''a decision on totally different grounds from' that pf r! having exceeded jbhe provisions of the Goldfields Act, He maintained that it Tested with' the appellant to open the' ! case, by bringing evidence to show why the decision should be reversed. r | Mr. MaoCormick said tbar, as the counsel for the defendant had not shown why the decision should not be reversed, judgment must pass for the appellant. < .The precedents be bad quoted Were 1 analogous to kbe present case, ami if any absurdities existed if v»s the fault of the law. The fact that the counsel for the' defendant had not shown'cause why the decision ' should' not be reversed 'was a'tadii admission on !his part of the validity of the objections raised. . i Mr. Gillies observed that he was prepared to ihiow oanse why the decision should not be reversed,; on the ground that no sufficient reaton had been given to justify the Court in reversing' the deoision. The whole case for the appellant rested on tbe following allegation!", unsupported by any evidence whatever : — 1. That the finding of the verdict Jby the assessors was contrary to, evidence. 2. That the Warden mi«drected the jury in instructing 'them to find a verdict for tbe complainant. 3. That tbe said decision declared the complainant to' be entitled to property not claimed by him in the action, and not the subject "of the laid action! J4. That be was taken by surprise. 5. That the finding of the assessors did not declare' the, plaintiff entitled to the property or value claimed by him in the action. , ( His Honor said that all the appellant bad brought in support of his case was his own' statement. Had the respondent not appeared, to repel the application, the Court would not have been justified in sending the case to be reheard by the Court below. He thought it was the duty of the appellant to open the case by laying before the Court some evidence in support of his application. c Mr. MacCormiok requested bis Honor to take a note of the objection, as it was a 'matter of great importance, and would no doubt be raised in many other cases of a similar nature. He wished to get the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter. Mr. Gillies said the Supreme Court had no power under the Goldfields Act to initiate a practice for the guidance of that Court. Mr. MaoCormick contended that the question had arisen unexpectedly, the Goldfields Act having only reeen'ly come into operation, and he thought it would be a Tery proper question to lend to the Supreme Court, as its decision in the case would settle the practice. . , Mr. Gillies said it was useless for the respondents to be put to tbe expense of taking the case into the Supreme Court, when they knew that that Court had no power to alter the law, which could only be done by the Legislature. His Honor said that in the opinion of the Court there were not sufficient grounds for the decision to be reversed, and that the costs of that action must be borne by the appellant. TOTHILL Y. MAOHATTM. Claim, £97, amount of bill due by Mr. William Btuce to Mr. George Webster, and endorsed by Mr. Maohattie. Mi*. Gillies appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Hesketh for tbe defendant. Charles Tothill deposed that he came into possession of the bill in August last. It was given to him by Mr. George Webster to collect, together with other debts due to him. David Hofig stated that he was employed a short time back as clerk to Mr. Webster, The bill produced was drawn by Mr. Webster on Mr. William Bruce, and endorsed by Mr. Machattie., The amount was due on account of goods supplied to Mr. Bruce. He informed Mr. Machattie when the bill was dishonoured, who then admitted his liability for the amount, but give as a reason for not paying it at the time that he must first get a settlement with his late partner, Mr. Macfarlane. Mr. Maohattie was Brace's landlord, and he believed that he had also an interest in bis business. 'There were two promissory notes owing by Bruce to Mr. Webster, both of which were endorsed by Mr. Machattie, - Cross-examined by Mr. Hesketh : At the time Mr. Bruce gave that promissory note he owed Mr. Webster , over £200. He concluded that Mr. Machattie had an interest in Bruoe's business from the transactions they had with each other, .and from what Mr. Bruce had told him. Mr. Webster had, received bills of sale from Mr. Bruoe, but they had no connection with tbe promissory note then sued for. , . ' . ' Be-examined : I saw Mr. Machattie sign the bill. G. S. Eissling deposed that be was 1 a clerk at the Bank of New Zealand. The bill in question bad been presented at the Bank in the usual oourse of business, and dishonoured, and a notice to that effect had been sent to Mr. Maohattie. George Webster deposed to having supplied goods to the value sued for. He had spoken to Mr. Machattie about the bill at the time it was dishonoured.' Mr. Machattie never repudiated bis liability to the bill until lately. Cross-examined : Mr. Macbattie volunteered to stand security for Mr. Bruoe, if he would continue to supply him with goods. This ooncluded the case for the plaintiff. T. M. Machattie stated that he had endorsed the bill on behalf of Mr. Bruce. He bad not received any consideration for the amount sued for. Previous to tbe action being commenced, he had had a conversation with Mr. Webster in reference to the bill, and Mr. Hogg bad been authorised by them to ask Mr. Bruoe for security. On Mr. Hogg making applica-. tion to Mr. Bruce for security, he had been refused. He had then applied to Mr. Bruce himself, and had reoeived some bills of sale, which were aooepted by Mr. Webster. He had never been asked to pay tbe bill since it was dishonoured. , His Honor gave judgment for the plaintiff for the full amount.

MCIKDOK Y. MTJNBOE, Claim, £50, for trespass. This was an action dependent on whether a landlord can distrain for rent when there is no written agreement between him and the tenant Mr. MacCormiok for plaintiff; and Mr. Gillies for the defendant. In opening the case, Mr. MacCormick said his learned friend, Mr. Gillies, would admit the trespass, but would attempt to justify the conduct of, defendant on the ground that he was lawfully distraining for rent. After stating the facts of the case, the following witnesses were called : — David Mclndoe : I am a dairyman residing at Mount Albert. On tbe 24th of March last I was living at Remuera, in a house of the defendant's. On that day a man named Lane came into my house, by order of the defendant, and distrained upon my ; goods. He remained on my premises for two days. I bad been in occupation between thirteen and fourteen , months. I had also four acres of land attached to the house, all belonging to defendant. How I came to take the house was, because I bad Been asked by defendant There was no fixed time for which I was to occupy it, There was a talk of my occupying it for seven years, if (it paid me, but no agreement on the subject. He told me I could leave it at any time, and that was the arrangement between us. Defendant boarded with me and alao lodged in the house, ' For the first four week* he lodged with me,

and then he bnarded and lodged for about six week* j and then after that he boarded with me only— li? in^ in » little home he had put np od my ground. For the use of the house and ground I was to pay him 12s. a-week, and that include 1 the |>ieoe of land on which he subsequently put the house. For his board he was to p»y me 8-». a- week. Thaie was no agreement .for a let-off. At the time the distress was I levied defendant delivered a bill to me for £3 lla. I do not adm i that bill to be correct. The witntßg was cross-examined at some length by Mr. Gillies. He ad milted that the fourth quarter's -, rent had not been paid— from the lit of Decembejr to the Ist of March. Had offered the money, but had not paid it, because no proper receipt had been proffered. Left the place a few days after the distress had been levied. The agreement was 1 12s. a-w^ek, and not £30 a-year. It was paid quarterly. | , Eliza Molndoe, wife of the last witness, gave corroborative evdence. j Mr. Gillies submitted that the plaintiff must be nonsuited, as he bad himself handed into Courttlree different reoeipta each for one quarter* rent. It ' lad been stated by plaintiff that it was to be a weekly rental of 125. , to be paid quarterly ; but if that had been so the quarter's renfwould have been £7 IBs., and not £7 10s., as it actually was, according tojthe receipt, so showing that defendant's statement was true, that there wag a distinct agreement for £30 a year, to be paid quarterly. , j The defendant was then placed in the witness-pox, and gave evidence confirmatory of Mr. Gillies's statement, ; This concluded the defendant's case. ! Mr. Gillies addressed the Court ; and the decision was reserved till next Court-day. ,

MUNBOE Y. MCINDOB. > Claim, £14. ' ' , : \ This was an action to recover on a promissory note given 'by defendant to plaintiff for certain goods sjold by him. There was a set-off for board and lodging. An arrangement. wa& made between the counsel to take judgment for too sum 1 of £7 13s. , I This being the last case on the list, the Court adjourned.