RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XX, Issue 3898, 14 April 1877, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Fripay, April 13. [DeforoK. Bcctbain, ESq., tt.M:] PATTERSON Vi SMITH. Claim for £3 10s Gd. The debt was admitted. Judgment for the amount, with 9s costs. SAME V. SAXTXDERS. Claim for £3 5s 6d. This debt also was admitted. Judgment for the amount with 0s costs. .TOLL V. I'EELLES. This was a judgment summons on a debt for £52 ll's Gd, and" £7 12s costs. Mr Cornford for plaintiff ; Mr Lee for defendant. Defendant was examined at considerable length as to his transactions and his means of payment. The debt to the plaintiff had been owing for ten years. It was contracted by plaintiff paying out the bailiffs from defendant's place when he was keeping a dairy. The judgment was obtained four years ago. Had paid £4 off. Defendant's occupation was that of a ploughman ; his earnings about 35s per week, never more than £2. Had two boys earning about 10s to 15s each. Altogether was in receipt of about £3 per week. Owed over £20 to Mr Barry, of Taradale, tor stores. That was the only debt he had, besides the one to plaintiff. Had been working as manager to his son, who had a farm on lease. His son's age was about 21 or 22. Had been working for his son for about 18 mouths. Thex - e were about 300 sheep and 5 cows on the farm. They belonged to his son. His son had given a bill of sale over the farm. Did not join with his son in the bill of sale. Lived in his son's house rent free ; his son did not live there. By Mr Lee : 1 have five children at homo ; the oldest is 1-4, and the youngest about 12 months. Mr Cornford and Mr Lee having addressed the Court, His Worship ordered defendant to pay the debt by instalments of 30s a month, and in default of any single payment that he be imprisoned for two months. HONE MOAXAXI7J V. MOHI TE AHIKOIA. This was a claim for £50 for damage done to a buggy. Mr Lascelles for plaintiff ; Mr Lee for defendant. The case occupied the Court several hours in consequence of a number of native witnesses giving their evidence in Maori, and which had to be interpreted. On the part of the plaintiff', it was alleged that in the year 1873 the defendant had taken the buggy without leave, while plaintiff was in town, and that by defendant's negligence the vehicle had got so smashed that it was not possible to repair it. It was admitted that the buggy belonged to "Alice," but then plaintiff was possessed of it at the time and was responsible for it ; and, moreover, Alice had demanded payment of the £40 which the building of a new buggy (using the old wheels) had cost. (leorge Faulknor, coach builder, gave evidence as to the condition in which the buggy was when it was brought to him. It was smashed in all directions, and he could not possibly do anything with it. At length he built a new one, using the okl wheels, and was paid £40 on account ot Alice. It was quite impossible to patch up the old buggy, as it would not hold together. In cross-examination, the evidence of Mr Faulknor led to the inference that what rendered it impossible to repair the buggy was partly attributable to its having been " smashed," and partly to its being in ill-condition through age and exposure to the weather. For the defence, it was alleged that defendant did not take the buggy Avithout leave, and in proof of that a witness named Martha was called, and she stated that the buggy was in her charge, and she had lent it to defendant. It was also alleged that the damage was the result of an accident, for which defendant could not be made responsible, and further that the sad condition of the buggy, as spoken of by Mr Faulkn «r, was only in a slight measure due to the accident, its very advanced age and the treatment to which it had been for years subjected at Maori hands fully accounting for its utter collapse on receiving only a slight shock. In support of the defence, the evidence of Alexander vSteole, eoaehbuUder, taken in Cisborne, was read. In the cour.se of the evidence he said of the buggy, " Bar wear and k-ar and age, there was nothing the matter except the broken spring [which he had offered to put, to rights for a pound |. It was more injured by exposure to the weather than anything else." The defendant and several other native witnesses having given evidence, and Mr Lascelles and Mr Leo having addressed the Court, His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff — damages £15, and costs. SMITH V. 3JAIRX. Claim for £100, balance of account.

Mr Lee for plaintili' ; Mr Sheehan for defendant. . The defence was that plaintiff had been paid a sum which he had accepted as in full payment of his demand, and had given a receipt to that effect. In consequence of the nature of the defence it devolved upon that side to commence. Plaintiff was accordingly called as a witness for the defence. He was shown the receipt "in full," and admitted that the signature was in his handwriting. He had not, however, read it at the time of signing, so as to become aware that it was a receipt in full. It was written out in Mr Cotterill's office [by Mr Cotterill, our reporter understood], and witness merely glanoed at it, thinking it was only a receipt for the £100. There had been previous conversations about it, and it was understood that Mr. Nairn and witness would go over the matter together, and settle what should be paid beyond the £100. "Witness was taking the £100 on account, and was quite sure he never said that it was in full. ' ( Witness said at the time tliat he was quite sure that Mr Nairn would. pay the balance, and Mr Cotterill said "very well." Mr Cotterill gave evidence as to conversations that had passed between plaintiff and himself previous to the payment of the £100. Had informed plaintiff that Mr Nairii would not pay more than £100. On one occasion plaintiff* said that he would take £160 to settle the wliole.thilig, and if he did not get that he would issue a writ. Witness then had a conversation ..on the subject with Mr Nairn, but he would not pay more. Informed plaintiff of it. Subsequently plaintiff came to witness, and remarking tliat he had a great objection to go to law, said he would tslke the £100 rather than do so. After getting the cheque and signing the receipt, plaintiff and witness had a very long conversation together, in the course of which plaintiff tried to convince witness of the fairiiess of his claim. Before the cheque was given to plaintiff, witness told him that Mr Nairn had instructed witness to pay plaintiff £100 in full settlement. Plaintiff said, " Very well ; I'll leave it, to his honor as 3, gentleman to pay the balance. " Witness told plaintiff iv reply that he would inform Mr Nairn of wliat plaintiff said. "Witness was under the impression that he read the receipt over to plaintiff ; but, at all events, plaintiff was quite aware of its nature. There was nothing said as to the payment being on account. The money was paid in full settlement, and plaintiff understood it so\ Mr Lee and Mr Sheehan having' addressed the Court, His Worship said that he could come to no other conclusion than that the plaintiff had it in his mind that he would leave the balance of the claim to Mr Nairn's honor, and having done so, he had put himself entirely in Mr Nairn's hands. Judgment for defendant, wifli £3 3s professional costs. NEWTON, IRVINE AND CO. V. GRUNER. Claim for £11 18s 2d, balance of account for goods supplied. Mr Carlile (for Mr Lascelles) for plaintiff' ; Mr Cornford for defendant. Defendant paid £6 12s 2d and 11s costs into Court, and disputed the remainder. The goods had been supplied to defennant at Havelock, and the witness who was called to prove plaintiffs' claim was unable to testify of his own knowledge as to the delivery of any of the articles. Consequently defendant's denials as to any of them had to be accepted. On the part of plaintiffs it was admitted, moreover, that there were mistakes in the claim amounting altogether to £1 Its. One of the items in the account was for interest ; and it was averred on the part of plaintiffs that defendant understood that he was to pay interest, as it was so set down on the billheads, and he had paid money on account without objecting to having to pay interest. Defendant denied tliat lie ever understood that he was to pay interest, or that he had ever received an account with a statement as to interest until the one last served upon him. In proof of which he produced several of plaintiffs' accounts on which there was no statement about interest. Judgment was given for the amount paid into Court, plaintiffs to pay to defendant £1 Is professional costs. GRAY V. VAUGHAN. When this case was called it Avas considerably past 4 o'clock. Mr Lee, who was engaged in it,- said that there were several witnesses to examine, and the case was likely to occupy the Court until 8 o'clock. His Worship said there was a criminal case to be heard on the following day. Mr Lee said that an adjournment of the case until some day in next week might be suitable, and probably by that time he and his learned friend Mr Cornford (who was on the other side) might arrive at an arrangement. The case was accordingly adjourned to Friday next. There was no other business before the Court.