MAGISTRATE'S COURT, REEFTON

Greymouth Evening Star, 21 February 1917, Page 6

MAGISTRATE'S COURT, REEFTON

... r - ' * TUESDAY. February 20th, 1917. o '■ ’ - : (Before'Mr. T.Jlutdjton, S.M.) .. ABSENT FROM DRILL. ' Police v. William G. lianing, who, was charged with •failing, 'to alUmt . - parades.—James MeitricK, iSergeantMajor. lleefUm, said- duicudaiit tafl.ed to attend drill. He attended "two par- ‘ V ades in, November.' Since then turn: had been seven parades and defendant failed to attend.—-Fined £L r A RESERVIST’S ADDRESS. Police v. John Clcrkin, charged with failing to notify Government Statistician of change of abode.—James Dow, constable, said, that defendant registered' at, Waiuta and since then had removed to Reef ton, and had faded to notify, hi-* change of address. He had been instructed by the (government Statistician to prosecute. Defendant had been drawn- in the bal, lot.—John Clerkin, defendant, pio- ' duced documents allowing that the Government Statistician knew that he was In Rcefton. lie had tilled in the enrolment: card on the second registration and had notified.the Government Statistician of change of address .and received registration card produced Information dismissed. DEBT CASES. J. Cohen v. Jag. Sunderland.- —Mr. Lawry, for defendant, applied *for leave to defend. —The case was ad- . jounied to March 6th Alex. Sanity v. F. Newman.-—Mr. ..Lawry for plaintiff.—Claim for £22 3s sd. and interest thereon. —Judgment f„r amount claimed and costs. Alex. Surety (Mr. Latfry) v. Thomas, ‘ Falloii. The amount had been paid into court.—-Judgment by default for costs only (8 s). Harold Bros. (Mr. Lawry) v. S.. Plummer, .claim £ll -a Id.—-Jiulg-of meat by default, with costs- (£1) and solicitor's fee (£1 Is), - f LONG STANDING SUIT. ' ’ Janieand Isaac Patterson (Mr. Patterson) v. William and James Rea (Mr. Hannan and Mr, Phillips), Action' to recover balance payable under ah order drawn on Clifford O’Regan, now residing at Shannon, and on chattel not delivered. Mr. Hannan contended that the action was on a promise to guarantee, not an agreement to pay. That was the case in the former action, and he could not see how it could be vfiried \ in this'suit. i Mr. Patterson contended that it was a right to recover, not a guarantee. It was an action against ,the principal debtor, William Rea, The reason do- " fondants were not pressed payment was that they were not in a' position to pay. The first cause of action was on a contract to pay ; the second waa a claim on on agreement and not us a debtor: the third was an ' action for value of certain chattels or delivery of same. The chattels consisted of a dray, horses, etc, James Patterson, one oj the. plaintiffs*, 'said that the chattel;, named in the agreement .(submitted) wore not' all ' delivered. A largo tip dray, set of harness, and three, acts of leading harness were not delivered. The value of the dray was £ls, as estimated by Rea. He claimed only Jit 2 for the 1 dray, £7 for drav harness, and £6 tor the throe sets of loading harness. 'I llcmc were fair values in 1911. He ' had asked for delivery - by letter in February <>f that year. A timber drdy : was delivered. Delivery of other 1 cu'iiclcM. had never been made since. 1 To Mr. Hannan : The letter asking • for delivery of dray was posted by 1 witness. The dray was delivered two- ( or three days after demand. James Rea was to retain one dray-. This c * was not one of the two drays mention- 4 - ed. The dniv returned was delivered try Coyle. Witness did not send Hie < demand to James Rea, only to W. ( - Rea. lie did not demand payment of r J the chattels since 1911, j * To Mr. I. Patterson: Witness saw ' J. Rea when he was working at An- 4 tonio’s. He always looked to W. Rea 1 for payment. . r

Isaac Patterson, plaintiff, said that he was a party to the agreement in January, 1911. Defendants were heav, ily indebted to his firm then, and because of dissensions among Rea Brcs. witness’s firm got them to corn- , promise. W. Rea. was* then carting -machinery between Murchison and Reef ton, using Hie chattels which were the subject of the-action. Janies Rea was at Antonio’s, using the timber dray carting coal to a dredge. W. Rea put in an offer to purchase the chattels, but his brother would not. consent. Finally the agreement was agreed to. W. Rea wag then more solvent .than lus brother, and witness’s firm looked , to him rather than to J.ames Rea. ..Witness's firm demanded delivery at Reef ton on February 2nd. Quite a number of letters were sent to, W, Rea, and some were replied to, James Rea became bankrupt and Wil_ liapr Rea wfent farming. The delay in action was because witness’s, firm did not consider the, defendants’ financial, position go6d enough. Edward .Schwas*, farmer,. remembered obtaining a dray from - W, Rea. Its value was £l2. Witness , got it from Rea about three years ago. W. Patterson, fanner, said that he was employed by plaintiffs in 1911 and before that tithe. He knew defendants well, and the plant they, were Using. Ho knew Hie tip dray. Schwa ss had it now. This was the dray James Rea was using at Antonio’s. It was then, worth about £7, and the leading harness £3 to £1 per set. The waggon was returned. The tip ,dray was nut returned, and none of the barTo Mr. Hannan : Witpesc told Mr. I. Patterson about three months ago that Schwaas had the dray. Rea told witness that, he “swapped” the dray to Schwa ssMr. Hannan asked ln» Worship to noriarit the plaintiffs on the grounds that his, decision .jn the former casecovered the present case. He quoted Section* 37 and 38 of the Chattels Transfer Act, and contended that as. tßeinstrument had nqt been filed and registered it was- no discharge, and the onus was on the plaintiff to prove that it had been < registered./ ■ ' Mr. Patterson copy of the original document which 1 had been sent to-, plaintiffs. : -Mr.. Hannan -ppipted. out-that under tire Chattels Act agreements bad to be. registered every s five years. This had ■ ® / -

not been dime, therefore the merit was;,dead. Mr- Patterson contended that. the certified copy -put in was sufficient. The agreement made was not under the Chattels Act. He asked leave to re-open the case to put iii. the agreement. His Worship said he would take a note of the points, raised in order to consider them Mr. Hannan said flint his client received a demand in November.‘l9l6, asking for the chattels. W. Rea, the defendant, said he did not receive any demand for return of chattels previous to November, 1916. This was the first demand. Plaintiffs saw witness often. Coyle took the waggon about five yearg: ago. Witness did not previously have a demand for the chattels. Witness did not know what goods Coyle took. The

dray claimed was left at O’Donnell's, at Cronadun.' The dray that Schwa, I ss got wag Hre one Patterson's gave to the brother of witness. To Mr. Patterson ; Witness, did not get a letter from plaintiffs until November last,. He did not give chains to Mefiariy. He did not get a letter from Mr. McNamara in regard to the . chains. The waggon Coyle took was standing at Cronadun about six or eight months. The chains were with the waggon. Witness was not«asked . for delivery of any harness until'November last. The harness went with the horses. James Rea said that one of the conditions of the agreement wag., that ho retained horse, dray and ha mess. Plaintiffs did not make a demand for the whole lot at any time. Witness brought Hie timber dray, to Crumpton’s stables. He exchanged 'the dray with his brother, who exchanged it with Schwas®. The other dray was left at O’Donnell’s. It had been there for ten years. The dray whs there that morning. Plaintiff never asked for delivery. Delivery was always given when asked for, : Witness got a demand recently for dray and harness, filed in February, 1913. To Mr. Patterson : ahe dray witness received from plaintiff was not included in the bill of sale. Witness got the dray he had from W. O’Brien, Plaintiff’s dray was left at O’Donnell’s. Witness never used the dray at Gallagher’s farm. Witness saw the dray at O’DpmieUV that morning. That was the dray referred to under f the agreement. It was £l2 ' when they gave plaintiffs the bill of sale. Witness never was asked to deliver the dray. His Worship-said that the principal point he liad to decide was whether * the production of the discharge was • .sufficient. ;.- :■ He held 'that it was not.. He held that the fact that the dray was -at Cronadun pointed out they could not succeed. v ’ -V His Worship reserved his decision., ■ I