THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 8808, 25 April 1892, Page 2

THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.)

Edmund Ackroyd v. Michael Bernatone.— C aim, L 33 13a Id, goods supplied.—Mr Wilkinson, who appeared for plaintiff, said be understood that Mr Solomon wished to make a statement to the Court.—Mr Solomon said that he originally appeared for defendant, but the latter had become bankrupt. After notice of adjudication in bankruptcy all proceedings had to be stayed. The porson really interested now was the Offioial Assignee, and he was not before the Court. He (Mr Solomon) did not appear for defendant now, and if the case were gone on with judgment might be given by default and the rest of the creditors become prejudiced, He would submit that the proper course to adopt was to stay proceedings, leaving plaintiff to prove on the estate.— Mr Wilkinson said that all His Worship was asked to decide was whether the debt was due or not. It did not matter to the Court who was the party interested. Besides, plaintiff had not received notice of the adjudication.—Mr Solomon remarked that he could satisfy the Court on that point at once. Perhaps the proper thing would be for him to appear for defendant, put in the notice of adjudication, and leave the matter in the hands of the Court.—His Worship: Are you authorised to appear ? —Mr Solomon: Yes.—His Worship Baid that taking everything into consideration he thought it would be better to allow the matter to stand over, That would relieve him of any difficulty.—Case adjourned for a week,

Robert Taggart v, William Hugh Taggart, —Claim, L7O, money lent. Mr Hanlon appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Stanford for defendant.—His Worship: Is this a case of son against father?—Mr Hanlon: Yes.— His Worship: Is there no possibility of referring the matter to arbitration ? I have generally noticed that when oases of this sort come into Court and are settled by the Court they lead to a continuation of illfeeling.—Mr Hanlon: I would much prefer that it should be settled in that way. What do you say, Mr Stanford ? —HiB Worship: Of course this is purely a suggestion on my part. You know the circumstances, and I do not.—Mr Stanford: If I wore satisfied that the adoption of such a oourse would lead to better feeling I should agree at once. I come here with some diffidence. But I am afraid that arbitration would hardly do. I have already submitted terms.—Mr Hanlon: Mr Stanford says that he submitted terms. I should like to state what they were.—Mr Stanford: I will admit that they were terms in my favor.—His Worship : You had better take an adjournment.—Mr Hanlon: We have tried to come to terms, but we are no nearer a settlement than we were at first, and plaintiff Bay? that he would now sooner go on, since tho terms referred to are the only terms they are prepared to offer.— His Worship : But they are not the only terms that could be offered. Thero are plenty of people in Dunedin who would gladly settle the matter out of friendly feeling for the family.—Mr Hanlon: Plaintiff says that he would prefer your Worship to hear the oasei His Worship: Very well. Mr Hanlon then opened the case. The action was one to recover L7O, money lent, Mr Taggart, sen., was about to apprentice a younger son of his to Mr Boot, dentist, and LI 00 was to be paid as premium. He was not able to draw LIOO at the time, and his son Robert then said he thought he could raise a good deal of the money, and terms oould perhaps be made for the rest. Robert paid L7O to his father in the preeence of Miss Taggart, and Mr Boot took a promissory note for the other' L3O. No receipt was taken for the L7O, the parties being then on good terms.— Evidence in suppf rtof the opening was given by plaintiff, Isabel Tasrgart, and J. Lawton. —Mr Stanford said that defendant's reply was a substantial denial of nearly all the statements made by plaintiff. The evidence of Mr Taggart would show that the proposition for apprenticing the lad came from the family—that they desired it and urged it; that the father, not having the money

readily at command, declined altogether to undertake the responsibility; and that the money was paid by the ohildren for the benefit of their brother, and was not paid into Mr Taggart's hands. The question was whether the money was lent to defendant or whether he paid a small portion of the sum to help his ohildten.—Evidence having been given by defendant, His Worship said it seemed to him that Dr De Zouche, who had suggested the apprenticing of the lad, would be in a better position t> form an opinion as to where the money came from than he (His Worship) was even now. His evidenoe might not be strictly legal, but if both parties agreed that it should betaken it might be of Bome assistance.—Counsel consented to the suggestion, and the case was ordered to stand over till the doctor could be called.—Half an hour later Dr De Zouche appeared, and, in answer to a question by the Bench, said that the impression left on his mind was that Mr Taggart was to pay the premium.—Decision reserved. William H. Taggart v. William J. Taggart.—Claim for recovery of possession of the jumping horse Robn Hood, or for damages on account of its detention. Plaintiff's evidence was that he had never parted with the horse to any member of bis family; that he saw his daughter riding the horse away from the paddock in company with defendant; and that though the horse might not fetch much at auction ho would not sell it for Lso. His Worship pointed out that there was no evidence connecting defendant with the matter.—Mr Stanford said that defendant had possession now, but he had not called evidence on that point because the witness could not well get away from his work, He would ask for an adjournment to procure that evidenoe.—His Worship said that he could not grant an adjournment, but must nonsuit, unless defendant consented. —Mr Hanlon said that defendant agreed to the adjournment, and His Worship ordered the case to stand down till two o'clock. On resuming, James Taggart, brother of plaintiff, said that he saw defendant trying to catoh the horse in the paddock. Witness told him not to take the horse excepting it was in the bill of Bale. Defendant said that he would take the horse in spite of anyone, and he did take it, and gave it to his sister. Mr Hanlon submitted that plaintiff should be nonsuited, on the ground that he had failed to show that defendant had possession at the present time. — His Worship ruled against the motion. —Mr Hanlon said the evidence for the defence would show that defendant simply acted as agent for his sister. Defendant had owned Robin Hood some time ago, but he swapped him to his sister, with Mr Taggart's consent, for tho pony Nap, and sioce then defendant hadnever suggested that the hone was his. It was his sister's, and he went out to Musselburgh with her when she went to claim the horse. James Taggart took down the panels when they arrived, and Misß Taggart put the halter on Robin Hood and led him away.—Defendant's evidenoe was to the effeot that he did not lay hands on the horse; he was mounted on a restive colt, and did not care to dismount.—After this witness had been examined the further hearing was adjourned till Wednesday. Anderson and 00. v. Peter M'Gill (Milton). —Claim, LlO 6a, goods supplied. Mr Sim for plaintiff and Mr J. Macgregor for defendant. There waß a set-off, put in by consent of Mr Sim, equal to the claim. — After the case had been partially heard an adjournment was made till Friday.