Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.

THE COURTS.—TO-DAY.

SUPREME COURT-GIVIL SITTINGS.

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.) William Fbbrik v. Isaac Isaacs.—Claim, Ll 50 damages. Sir R. Stout appeared for plaintiff; Mr Solomon for defendant. The plaintiff, in his statement of claim, said (I) that by deed dated December 12, 1888, made between him, his wife, and the creditors of his wife, she conveyed and assigned to him all her real and personal property, credits, and effects to hold in trust for the said creditors; (2) that defendant, on December 17 of the same year, converted to his own use,, and wrongfully deprived plaintiff of the use and possession of we goods, household furniture, and chattels in Mrs Feme’s house. Wherefore plaintiff claimed Ll5O damages,. The statement of defence denied the plaintiff’s allegations. For a further defence defendant said (1) that by two bills of sale dated April 21, 1887, and February 4,1888, Mrs Ferrie assigned to him the goods, furniture, and chattels referred to; (2) that one of the terms of agreement gave defendant power—in default of payment of moneys or interest intended to be secured when due or demanded, or on breach of covenants contained or implied, or if the mortgagor should be adjudged a bankrupt or execute a deed of assignment for the benefit of her creditors — to seize _ and sell the assigned premises by public auction or by private contract, and to apply the proceeds to the liquidating of any sums due to him, and of sums due for expenses, (3) That on December 17, while the bills of sale were in force, defendant demanded payment from Mrs Ferrie of the sum of L 43 2s due under the bills, and she failed to pay the same or any part of it. (4) That defendant thereupon caused the said goods to be seized and sold by public auction. And for a further defence defendant said that on March 13, 1888, Mrs Ferrie transferred to one Mary Williams all her interest, if any, in the goods referred to. Isaac Isaacs, defendant, stated that he had had some transactions with Mrs Ferrie. The first was on April 21, 1887. He had not his books with him, but would send for them. He bad received nothing from Mrs Ferrie on the first bill of sale; but she had paid L 8 off the second bill, and three times she had paid L 6 so that be should not put the bill in the bank. Witness threatened to put the bill in force, and she said that she would give him L6if he would not do so. He had received only this L 26 altogether, except L2 she paid him for trouble- he had taken in a case with one Sutherland. Witness had got a receipt dated October 29, 1888, from Mrs Ferrie as follows:—“ Received from I. Isaacs the sum of L 29 7s, damages in the case Isaacs v, Sutherland.” There was in it an item “L 6 interest on bill of sale.” That was one of the three sums of L 6 paid by her to keep over the bills of sale. That was profit, or interest, and it was arrived at by an offer of her own. He did not make a demand fn writing on the first bill of sale, but he made a verbal demand. The L 6 was not to be paid by six monthly payments of Ll each. No statement was made by him to her that if she paid L 6 every six months he would not enforce the bill of sale. The bills were payable on demand, and when be made a demand Mrs Ferrie used to say: “If I give you L 6 will yon hold over the bill of sale ? ” To this he replied “Certainly.” He used to hold it over for six months. No date for payment was fixed, but he used to think six months a reasonable time. He could have enforced the bill and seized under it at any time—the very next day after she paid the L 6, if he bad liked to be dishonest. The receipt for L 29 7s was in witness's writing, and with it he supplied an account of payments that be he bad made for rent, insurance, etc,, on her account. This account showed that L 4 had been paid to Mrs Ferrie, but she did not actually take any cash out of his office —she said she would take up an lOU for money that she had previously borrowed froip him. It was at her own suggestion that he charged her L2 9a for his services, she saying that be h & d had a great deal of trouble in connection with the case against Sutherland. The three sums of L 6 were not to go to either of the two bills, although in the receipt L 6 was set down as interest on bill of sale”—it applied really to both bills of sale, but was simply a payment to restrain him from enforcing either bill. Mrs Ferrie fixed the sum of L 6 herself, and no time was fixed that he should hold the bilb over for; he could have enforced them next day, but she relied on hb honesty. She told him that it might be three, four, or six months before she could sell her property and pay off the bilb. At the end of the first six months she went to hb office and asked him to hold the bills over if she gave him LO, and he agreed to do so. She paid the first sum of L 6 on November 27, 1887 s but she did not pay the other sums of L 6 each. She went away to Melbourne, and her daughters paid them to get the bills held over. They paid L 3 on May 8, 1883; L2 in June, Ll m July, and LO in October. The L 8 paid off the bill was paid as follows: —LS in March and L 3 in April of thb year. Sir Robert Stout said that that would conclude witness’s examination until hb books were produced, which witness prombed to do at once.

To Mr Solomon: Witness bad had transactions with the Perries for six or seven years past. It was never mentioned that the money was originally lent for six months; she said it might be twelve months before she realised on her property, as she did not wish to sacrifice it. That was the reason why the bills were made payable on demand. The second bill was dated FebAary 4, 1888. In the case of Isaacs v. Sutherland, witness sued defendant for the illegal detention of an organ, the property of Mrs Ferrie, and contained in the second bill of sale. The whole matter of the bills of sale was then gone into in*the Resident Magistrate’s Court, and witness was cross-examined in the same way as he had been to day, bat more severely. Mrs Ferrie and her family gave evidence in his favor in that case. He was on very friendly terms with them at that time, and up till the bringing of this suit, A month or so after Sutherland’s affair Mrs Ferrie called with a Mrs Gooseman, her daughter, and the latter asked for 7s to get boots for her children with, while Mrs Ferrie asked for money to get coal with. Witness said he would lend Mrs Oooseman the 7s out of bis pocket, bat be had no more in his pocket to fend Mrs Ferrie, and wonld not lend her any more on the bills. Mrs Ferrie then said she would “ make it hot ” for him. To Sir R. Stout: Witness did not swear in Sutherland’s case, as reported in the 'Daily Times,’ that there was a verbal agreement that the money under the bills was to be paid by instalments extending over twelve months.

J. R. Thornton, solicitor, proved a deed of assignment executed by Mrs Feme for the benefit of her creditors. To Mr Solomon: Mrs Feme’s interest in her furniture was the principal item in the dead. William Ferrie, the trustee under the deed, was not a creditor in the estate. Witness did not know that he was a “ man of straw," and that there were several unsatisfied judgments outstanding against him. The whole object of the deed was not to get a plaintiff for this action. Margaret Ferrie, wife of plaintiff, stated that when she first applied to defendant for a loan Mrs Gooseman was with her. She said she wanted L2O, and would give a bill of sale over her furniture as security. He said he would charge her L 6 interest for every six months, and she said she would give it. When she went to defendant’s office a t Mrs Williams was with hei and a Mr Greagh was also present. The last-named read over a deed that defendant had prepared. Witness said to defendant that she did not hear ‘ anything about the interest. He replied that that was all right, so long as she paid the L 6 every six months. She said be might sell her off at any time, and he replied that he would not do that—so long as she paid the interest he would protect her from any other creditor. She signed the deed and got the L2O. At the end. of . six months she paid him L 6 and asked for a'receipt, bnt defendant said she did not require one for interest. He had not previously made a'demand for the L2O, but had written to her asking for the LG interest. „Sho had not kept that letter. Her daughter paid L 3 and L2, and witness LI after her return from Melbourne,

She subsequently paid defendant a third L 6, and at the time remarked to him “That makes LlB for interest.” She subsequently gave defendant a second bill of sale, she borrowing a second L2O. Mrs Williams was with her. She gave as security an organ and a lot of new things that she had. Mr Creagh had a deed ready, and defendant said he could lend her only Ll7. He was to charge L 23 in the bill of sale, and the money was to be repaid at the rate of L 3 per month. Witness signed the deed, and got the Ll7. This deed was not read over to her. She paid one sum of L 3 a month afterwards, and gave her daughter L 3 to pay the second instalment; while a third payment of L2 was also made. After Sutherland’s case defendant read over to her the statement of how the L 29 7s had been expended. He himself suggested that she should pay him L2 2s for his trouble. She told him to say, if asked, that it was she who suggested this payment. On the day of Sutherland’s case she received a money order for L 5 from her son, who was in■ Melbourne. Defendant asked her to call at his office, and got the L 5 from her, and then said: “If you are asked about that you can say you received L 3 from Mr Isaacs to pay yonr rent with.” She replied that the money was her own. She oould not remember the day when she got notice of money being due, but the bailiff brought it, and stayed in the house in charge for about a week. Defendant took the furniture away. Witness’s husband told him that he took the things on his own risk. Defendant said he did not care to whom they belonged. He took away some furniture that was not in the bills of sale. The furniture was worth about LISO to witness at the time, but L2OO would not replace it. To Mr Solomon : Witness had had transactions for several years with defendant, borrowing money from him on pledge and also buying things from him. Defendant did not give her to understand that he could call up the money at any time. Witness did not remove any goods from the house. She had sent a table-cloth to Melbourne, and told defendant about it. Some of the things taken by defendant belonged to her daughter. Witness did not tell defendant before he took the bills of sale] what things belonged to her daughter. Witness got the organ from Sutherland, but had not paid for it, and there wero other things in the bouse that she had not paid for when she borrowed on the second bill. Witness never transferred her interest in the property to Mrs Williams. She once told defendant that she was being threatened, and he said he would draw sp a document that would protect her. Ha said it would be "to Mary,” meaning her daughter. He drew up the document, and she signed it. Isaac Isaacs, recalled, produced his books and gave evidence as to the entries therein. There were entries in Mrs Feme's account of payments by her for * ‘ interest ” and ‘ 1 part interest,” and with reference to the second bill there were entries of L 6 and L 3 received. There were no entries of L 6 8s paid to Mr Judge for rent on Mrs Feme's account, or of L 4 cash paid to herself because he obta'n ;d no profit from them ; he entered only such transactions as he gained profit from. Mary Williams and Agnes Oooseman, daughters of Mrs Ferrie, also gave evidence. George Daniels, whose house Mrs Ferrie had been renting, stated that he valued her furniture at the time it was seized at from Ll6O to LIBO.

John Brown, furniture dealer, said that he valued the furniture at a little over L2OO.

Sir R. Stoat here called Randolph C. Creagh, clerk, who stated that he was in defendant’s employment when the bills of sale mentioned in the case were given by Mrs Ferrie and the two deeds signed by her. No mention of interest was made, to his recollection. Mrs Ferrie got L2O the first time, and she was to pay L 26 back. No time was mentioned as to when she was to pay it back, but she said that she would pay it as soon as she could sell some property. That was after witness bad read over the deed to her. He read the second deed also to her, and told her, as en the first occasion, that if there was anything In the bill that she did not understand he would explain it to her. No time of repayment—by week or month—was mentioned. . Witness was not the lawyer " that drew up the deeds; he simply copied them from drafts given him by defendant. Witness not asked by defendant to retire; be remained in the room on each occasion till Mrs Ferrie left. [Left sitting.]

CITY POLICE COURT.

(Before Messrs J. Logan and J. Elmer, Justices.)

Drynkenness.— Waller Dixon, who it was stated bad been continuously drinking for the past two months, and doing nothing but asking money for drink, was fined 10s or forty-eight hours’ imprisonment. William Burnet, for being drunk while in charge of a horse and cab, was let off with a similar punishment, the Bench remarking that this was a serious offence, and that defendant might have been sent to gaol for three months.

Vagrancy.— Margaret Docherly pleaded guilt/ to charges of drunkenness and vagrancy. The police proved thirty previous convictions, and described her as one of the most incorrigible characters abont the town.—For drunkenness accused was fined IDs, in default forty-eight hours’ Imprisonment; on the more serious charge she was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, the sentences to run concurrently. Bylaw Cases— Bridget Murphy was fined ]s, without costs, for permitting a chimney to become foul and catch on tire, John 4nderson, for allowing six cows and a calf to wander, was fined is per head, without costs.

Stbalikg Je wblleby. —.Harry Thornton was charged that on or about the 28th May he stole two rings, a brooch, and a pair of earrings, of the value of Lls, the property of Emily Robberds. Mr Farnie appeared on behalf of accused. — Chief-detective Henderson, having opened the ease, called Emily Robberds, wifejof William Robberd^ho said (fiat she lived at Cox’s Temperance Hotel. Mrs Cox was her mother. Her (witness’s) bedroom was in the top storey. Accused had been staying at the bouse for some months. At the time the things were missed his room was downstairs. Witness missed two finger rings, a brooch, and a_ pair of earrings. The brooch and finger rings were kept in a looked drawer in witness’s bedroom. The door of the room was kept unlocked. The articles referred to were missed on the morning of the 28th May last. There was a bunch of keys in the chest of drawers, one of which fitted the drawer containing the jewellery. When the things were missed the drawer was looked. She had seen the articles some time in May. The earrings were kept on the looking-glass in Mrs Cox’s room on the first floor. At the time the things were missed accused was sleeping in a room nearly opposite Mrs Cox’s. Accused used to come into the house after witness _ went to bed, and did not get up until late in the day—sometimes eleven and as late as one o'clock. At those hours there were few persons about the upstairs rooms. Accused still owed something for beds. The earrings produced were those that witness missed. She reported the loss to the detectives. Accused had left the house three weeks previous to his arrest. Mr Farnie : Other people were in the habit of moving about upstairs and downstairs at all times of the day.—James Murdoch, dealer, said that about the middle of May be bought a brooch from accused for half a crown. It was the brooch produced. Witness subsequently gave it to Michael Carey to pledge for him. To Mr Farnie : He got as much as he could on the brooch.— Michael W. Carey (laborer) and Samuel Goldston (pawnbroker) also gave evidence. The last-mentioned witness valued the brooch at 18s and the earrings atSs.—JamesCowper, laborer, Said that he bought a pair or jet earrings from accused in June. The price Was 4s. The earrings were those produced. —Detective M'Orath gave particular's as to the recovery of the stolen goods' and the arrest —Mr Farnie submitted that so far as the rings were concerned there was no evidence before the Court which could place the stealing at the door of the accused. -Chief-detective Henderson: Not up to the present. We are in hopes of getting the rings.—Mr Farnie submitted this for the purpose of bringing the matter under

the summary jurisdiction of the the case were abandoned so far as the rings were concerned, the value of the other articles could be brought under L 5, There was no evidence as to the rings excepting that they were lost.— Chief-detective Henderson replied that it was entirely within the discretion of the Bench whether the case should be sent to the Supreme Court or not.—Mr Parnie said that this was so, but perhaps their Worships would, without giving a decision as to the guilt of prisoner, say whether it was a case for the Supreme Court, the value of the goods being trifling,—Mr Logan: We are inclined to send him for trial. —Mr Farnie: Prisoner then will reserve his defence. Accused was then committed, bail being allowed, himself in LIOO and two sureties in LSO each.

PORT CHALMERS POLICE COURT. (Before Messrs W. Elder and J. Morgan, J.P.’s.) Disobedience op Commands. Johi O'Shanasy, a seaman belonging to the Gaitloch, was charged with disobedience of lawful commands on 29th May, while on a voyage from London to this port. There was no appearance of defendant, and Mr Platts, who appeared for the complainant, asked that the case might at once be proceeded with.—Captain Dornon produced the ship's articles, which accused ha 1 signed for the round voyage. On May 29 witness ordered him to lend a hand to take in the fore-topsail, as there was danger of it being blown away, but he refused without the whole watch was with him. Shortly afterwards witness called him aft and threatened to lock him up. Accused replied that he would not strike witness then, although he bad previously “done three months’” for not so miserable an object as witness. Accused had been a constant trouble the whole of the voyage. There were several entries in the log-book of his refusal to obey commands.—William Smith, chief officer, gave corroborative testimony.—At this stage accused appeared with Mr North, who stated that he defended, and asked for an adjournment as ire bad only seen his client for a few minutes, it being ten o’clock when accused was brought on shore. The summons was only served yesterday, and he wished to produce witnesses who were on board the snip. Their Worships adjourned the case until noon, and on resuming Mr North stated there had not been time to get the witnesses on shore. He therefore applied for a further adjournment, which Mr Platts protested against, but the Bench decided to adjourn the case until 1.30 p.m., so that defendant’s witnesses might appear.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18890710.2.20

Bibliographic details

THE COURTS.—TO-DAY., Evening Star, Issue 7955, 10 July 1889

Word Count
3,558

THE COURTS.—TO-DAY. Evening Star, Issue 7955, 10 July 1889

Working