CIVIL CASES.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume 13, Issue 1049, 18 May 1869, Page 3

CIVIL CASES.

. EeynoUsv. B6binson> Mr., Leefor plaintiff; Mr. Cuff for defendant. This was an action brought to recover damages alleged to have been caused to plaintiff by improper seizure of his goods by defendant under a bill of sale. By the terms of the bill of sale, defendant was forbidden to seize or sell unless one of the following conditions was not carried out (l|by plaintiff. He was to pay £30 every three months ; to keep books to the satisfaction of defendant ; to allow defendant to inspect the books at any time he might desire. Defendant could also sell if the books were falsified, or the business unremunerative. Thomas Reynolds deposed :-?-I am a publican carrying on business at Havelock. In August last I was in difficulties. Robinson, who was one of my creditors, came and offered to assist me in making an arrangement. An arrangement was made. A bill of sale in favor of Robinson was executed on > August 17, 1868. The, seizure took place on the 9th January 1869. Up to that time I continued to carry on business as usual. On the Bth January defendant and I had some words about books and receipts. He said he should take the books away. I would not allow him, upon which he told me he should sell me up on the following day. I said that, according to agreement, I was only obliged to pay every three months. I employed Mr Lee as my solicitor, who asked Robinson what he demanded; was it money ; P He replied no, it was not money but the books. I "told him he had had them the day before. He said I had not kept the books properly; that I had omitted to enter two sums which I had paid away. I had omitted to enter them in the book. The two sums escaped my memory. I sent tho money down, to the Bank. I paid £30 to defendant after the goods were seized. The payment was not due till February ; the goods were sold on 21st January. The furniture and stock cost about £600 ; they sold for £230. I have asked defendant for account sales. I have seen a rough copy ; I could scarcely make it out. When I paid the first £30, he said he must get rid of the property as 10 per cent, did not pay him. He wanted to sell the surplus stock. I objected to any sale ; I wanted all the stock for business. Till the day previous to the seizure he made, no complaint about the books. Between the 9th and 21st, when the bailiffs were in the house, few persons came. By Mr. Cuff. — There was a statement made before the creditors. They agreed to take 6s. Bd. in the pound. Mr. Robinson went with me to purchase three books ; he instructed me how to keep the books ; I have kept them in that manner. The cash book shews all monies paid and received by me in respect to business between the 9th October and 9th January. I paid Mr. Harding's account in full since the bill of sale. Besides my publican's business, I have the proceeds of paddocks, pound fees, and profit from buying and selling cattle. William Robert Robinson, deposed s— In October I put pencil memorandum in books shewing plaintiff how he should keep his books. He promised to keep them in the manner shewn. He said that business was dull then, but would improve at shearing time. I have paid on account of plaintiff, £177 and £59 to creditors. £144 was due, to me. I saw plaintiff on the 3rd November ; I told him that, without undue interference,.! thought old creditors should have present cash sales: I did not refer to myself. I wanted to sell surplus goods ; plaintiff said he had none. I had a deal of trouble to get an account out of him of monies not entered in the book. The evening before the seizure I had the books for some hours. I wanted to take them to town to an accountant, but he . refused to allow me and snatched tljem away. I could not get them back, although I said I would sit up all night to inspect them. I then said I would seize and sell. On the day of seizure Mr. Lee asked the amount of my account. I said if he would pay I would give up possession. I had no account with me, but said I would send to town for it. I had to wait for the books while Reynolds, by Lee's advice, made entries. Reynolds refused me access to two places, and said he would kill me if I Attempted to get in. The entries made in the books were the two omitted items of Armstrong and Russell. I knew that in locked up places there were partitions ready made for completing bed rooms, but heard that other things were there also. William Fisher deposed :— I am an accountant.- I went to Reynolds' to inspect the books arid take an inventory of the goods for Robinson. I had to wait while entries were made. I found slips of payments amounting tb £26, not entered in the books. The books shew payments over receipts of about £23. I hand in a statement. His Honor remarked that the statement did not give any credit for plant and stock, which became in part released from Robinson's claim on the payment of £30 a quarter. . - , Henry Groom, deposed :— I am a bailiff. v On Robinson's while in posses- ; sion, I allowed plaintiff to sell stock, and received account sales every night. They amounted to £11 or £12. His Honor summed up at considerable length, directing the jury to give a verdict upon six- points. The jury, after deliberating for some considerable time, returned the following verdict : — I.— The goods at the time of seizure were property of the plaintiff. 2.— The books do not shew whether the business was remunerative or not. 3.— -The plaintiff kept proper books. 4.— The plaintiff did not refuse permission to inspect his books. 6.— The plaintiff did not falsify his books. , 6. —Damages for plaintiff, £85. The court was then adjourned till 10 o'clock the following morning. Satubday, May 15. France v. BucJmnan. Mr. Wilson for plaintiff; Mr. Cuff for defendant. This was an action brought to recover rent for part use of certain premises and damages for illegal occupation. An immense amount of extraneous matter introduced into this case by the counsel on ; both sides, ostensibly for the purpose of testing the credibility of witaesjQSt'-';: ;" : ' :: . '■■ Angusk Koch, depoeed: — I know the ivovvS&Mti 3?xkdao vised to occupy, I con* sideyifc worfcK abpufc £4D per annum. I know 'jfldiKß^aßfe Ab.anijDeßemW, 1866, helped 4ft; France's house. From thaj tiraeitoifc&e present he has lived there ofl and on. Before France left the province,

' Buchanan lodged with him ; Napier was Buchanan's principal place of residence. I often visited him at the house. Mrs. France used generally to be in the sitting room ; she left when I came in. I have had occ.Mdioa to call upon Mr. Buchanan with respect to drill and other matters ; he slept in tho parlour. Mr. France has spoken to me about his private affairs, but never in connection with Buohanan. I know that the late Mrs. Buchanan and Mrs. France were good friends. I have seen Buchanan's two daughters in the house since France left. I, at his request, received them on their arrival at the Spit, and escorted them to the house ; I believe one is there still. I have never been there when Mr. Buchanan and Mrs. France were the only persons in the house. ■ Robert France said :— I was formerly a storekeeper in this town. I know defendant. He lodged in my house for about three months from September 1866. About the middle of December, I ordered him away because he was insolent, bounceable, and said what he ought not. He was insulting to me personally. I could see there was an attachment between him and my wife. The Judge here pressed the witness as to his reasons for so believing. Witness.— l could see that they were intimate and that I was despised in her eyes. Mr. Wilson. — Trifles light as air, are to the jealous confirmation strong as proof of Holy writ. The Judge.-— Yes ; but trifles light as air, if confirmation strong to the jealous, are not so to a jury. ' Witness, continued : I was contemptible in her eyes. I accused her of immorality. I believed her to be unfaithful. I charged her with infidelity with defendant, and told her that he was not to come back to the house. She many a time told me she would go with any man she. liked. She owned some years ago to having committed adultery with another person who was living in the house. I made provision for my wife during my < absence. Including the rent of house, she had about £600 during the two years I was away. I came back in December 1868. I found defendant in the house. I went to the house in March. Buchanan opened the door. I said, Mr. Buchanan I order you out of mv house ; ho said he should not go as he had leased it. Defendant has paid me no rent. By Mr. Cuff. — I quarrelled with Buchanan before I left. He told me to make out my account. I told him I would not charge him for board and lodging as he was a public servant. I recollect the morning he went away. I had words with him the night before. I may have cooked his breakfast that morning. I returned in December. I did not go to the house till March. I heard Buchanan was in Wellington, but had great difficulty in getting information as to his movements. I did not go during his absence, as I believed my wife to be bad. Thomas Scully, Inspector of Police, deposed to having gone with plaintiff to his house in Coote-road. He went a little fore me and knocked at the door. Defendant answered it. Plaintiff told him that he had come to order him out of the house. Defendant said he had leased the house ; the door was then closed, not banged to. Edward Lyndon said : — I am a land agent, and was agent for plaintiff. In the early part of January 1867, I received a power of attorney. I went to Mrs France and told her. Five minutes after I got back, Mr. Buchanan called and demanded to see tho power of attorney, saying he was her particular friend. I refused to shew it to him. Some time afterwards I was called upon to produce the power of attorney in the Resident Magistrate's Court. Mr. Buchanan was present. Mr. Buchanan did not read the power of attorney. John Buchanan, deposed : — I have never read the power of attorney referred to. I saw it in Mr. Cuff's hands. I never read any part of it. Mr. Cuff has never informed me of its contents. I have known plaintiff ever since I came to the province. We have always been on friendly terms. ' He frequently consulted me about his affairs. I lived in a house next to his for some time. The only lodgings I have ever occupied since I came here, have been in his house. I distinctly assert that I never had any difference with plaintiff. I parted with him on friendly terms. He made no observation which would lead me to suppose otherwise. The night before I left, I asked plaintiff to make out his bill. He said, — You have been fighting for me and my property ; I shall make no charge. I insisted in a friendly way upon having it. Ho never gave it to me. Never during our acquaintance has plaintiff said anything to me concerning his wife. I came down to Napier again about January 1867, and then learned that France had gone. ■ I lodged with Mrs. France. I have lodged there off and on ever since. Whether there or not (and I was often away) I paid 255. per week, as I had a child living in the house. Mr. Wilson submitted that as there was no agency proved, any payment made to Mrs. France .could have nothing to do with the case. His Honor said he would tell the jury differently. It would be a hard case for the occupier of lodgings to have to pay his rent twice because .they happened to be kept by a woman whose husband was absent. Witness continued : In March last Mr. France came to the house and said he had come to turn me out. I said I had rented it, and may have added loosely, leased it. I left the house three days ago. By the Court : I don t think previous to July, 1867, there was any agreement as to rent ; subsequently, rent at the rate of 255. per week was paid as from the commencement. Eliza France, being sworn, said : I am the wife of Robert France. I remember about December, 1866. My husband did not then, nor has he ever accused me of conducting myself improperly with defendant. He never ordered him to leave the house to my knowledge. He never told me not to allow him into the house again. On Christmas day I asked my husband if he was going away. Ho said, I may or I may not. Buchanan's name was never mentioned in connection with his leaving the province. My husband has through a course of years accused me pf being unfaithful to him. I never admitted to him having been so. I shared ' his bed up to his departure, but never had any conversation with him for years except on business matters. His conduct towards me was that of a jealous man. Mr. Buchanan has paid me 255. a week for 1 board and lodging. His Honor, in summing up the case to 1 the jury, told them that if they believed . the plaintiff's evidence, they would give a verdict for half the rental of the house, for the time defendant occupied the half. If, on the other hand, they believed the cvi- • dence of defendant, he could not see how plaintiff was entitled to receive more than half the rental from the 27tb, March to the > time defendant gave up occupation. If ► dofe»da.Ttfc'YJas cognisant of tos fa.cttu.at [ lie wag living in the house in opposition to , tb§ sxp^ssea wish of plaintiff, thon the I 255. a Week which he had paid to Mrs. f France could only be looked upon as a , present.

The jury after a short deliberation, returned a verdict for plaintiff for £8. 10s. Summoned jurors were then discharged, this being last case of the sitting to be heard before a jury. The court then rose. Yesterday, the court sat in bankruptcy. Mr. Cartwright Brown underwent a lengthy examination. He was finally discharged, as was Mr. Milne.