An Absent Litigant.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 6989, 16 February 1894, Page 3

An Absent Litigant.

The civil case of J. F Orane v. Orowther and Maoauley was mentioned before his Honor Mr Justioe .Richmond yesterday afternoon, when Mr McLean, on behalf of the defendants, moved—First, the dismissal Of the claim, on the gronud of want of prosecution; second, that the plaintiff should find security for costs on the ground that he had left the colony; and, third, that he should supply further particulars of claim.

Mr Humphries, who appeared for the plaintiff, opposed the motion. Mr M'Leaa, in support of his applioatior, went into details, and said that near the end of December, Orane, who kept the Tarawera Hotel, loft Tarawera, his wife and family being left behind. The affidavit of one of the defendants stated this, and farther that Crane's wife and family also left the place, and were now resident at Woodville. In January Mr J. H. Vantier took possession of, the hotel, stock, etc, which was security for the sum.of £1200 advanced to Orane, and he had had the license transferred to the man in ohirgo, Mr O. W. Greenwood. Further, that it was notorious throughout Napier and Tarawera that Crane owed a number of people

money. There was another affidavit filed by himself (Mr M'Lean), but it had more \ of a reference to the amended statement of Tta*~olaim, but it stated in one of the paragraphs y*- that it appeared from the records of the Resident Magis rate's Court that Crane was cued by Messrs Jbillison and Duncan for £11 6s 9d, and he confessed judgment; also, that ha was sued by A Parr for £6 for

wagis ; and judgment went by default. - v Mr Humphries at this stage admitted tbat the plaintiff was in fiaancial diffiMr McLean rjmarked that the prinoipal matter of contention in this cas9 was whether or not there was an agreemant between plaintiff and the defendants that the defendants' drivers and others should be entertained free of cost at the hotbl when they took passengers there. On the one .--■ hand there was suppoeed to be free board, .-••'"' and on the other frje carriage of pai-oeis, &o. At any rate, there was an affidavit filed by Mr Humphries, who said that to the biut of his knowledge the plaintiff had a good cause of action against the defendants. There was a contra account of the defendants to the amount of £21 odd, £8 of whioh the plaintiff disputed. The affidavit further asserted that Crane had, according to the recollection of some people, been in Napier within the last three weeks, but he had not been able to ascertain bis whereabouts la fact, he could not say definitely whethtr he was within the colony or not. Mr MoLean said this affidavit had only been filtd that moraing, and the statement jus: read hai taken them completely by surprise. There was an affidavit *from Inepeotor Emerson to the /-effect that, from information received, ha on '""'"f the 30th January iEsued an information against Crane for allowing another person to manage his hotel for m're than fourteen days in a year, he being absent from the premises. Constable Shaw, of Wjviroa, could not serve the reported that he could not ascertain." Crane's wherek_. abouia. -*?£bii this evidence it was quite "Slear that Crane had either left the colony, and if he had not he was purpDsely concealing his address. Under the circumstances, he submitted that tha plaintiff in the case ahould find security for the costs. .He thought it was one of those cases in which one woold probably bear of Crane being in San Francisco. Mr Humphries said he did not know of Orane'd whereabouts, bat people whose recollection was baaed on events believed he had been here within the l»st few weaks. His Honor: It is a very curious thing for a plaintiff to keep out of the way. He cannot go on with his action if he keeps away. Why do you want 'security for the costs? Mr McLean said the defendant* were ordeied to ftud Berarity themselves, the reason being that they applied for further particulars and further time. The plaintiff signed judgment before the motion was heard, and there waa a motion to set aside the judgment. Hie Honor the Chief Justice came to the conclusion that the plaintiff i had been harsh, but that he (the Chief oould not do otherwise than ask the defendants to provide security to the amount of £125. His Honor suggested tbat perhape it would be the best plan to adjourn this for a month to see if Crane turned up. The case oould not be hearl for months yet. Mr Humphries pressed for a dismissal of the motion, on the ground that there was no provision for dismissal of the action, and that the plaintifE had given all the particulara he poeaibly oould. The question of security of costs was adiournad for a month to see whether the plaintiff would put ia an appearanoe, and all proceedings in the action stayed for six weeks.