MAGISTRATES COURT.

Hot Lakes Chronicle, Volume 4, Issue 187, 1 July 1896, Page 2

MAGISTRATES COURT.

At this Court on Saturday last before Licut.-Col. Roberts, S.M., and Mr S. T. Brent J.P., the following civil cases were disposed of. UNDEFENDED CASES. J.ll.Taylorv.ll. Curtis; claim £2l, dishonored promissory note; verdict for plaintiff with £1 12s costs. G. McAuley v. Towaii Atcrea; claim 17s, cash lent and goods; verdict for plaintiff with lis costs.

T. Samson v. T. Hall; claim £(j 2 ~ goods sold ; verdict for plaintiff jrif '' costs. " iJi Defended Cases. G. HcAuley v. W.Henshaw; ~]..,,„.. £3 1!»-:, goods sold. The defen plied for an adjournment in order to cure the presence <>f ;i witness now at f Thames. Adjourned accordingly fo t~T Mary B'rennan v. Rebecca BrinW claim £ll 3s K)d. This jras a \C'' : disputed ace lim i. The defendant adn . ted her liability to the extent of £1 ju disputed various items and prcdua I unstamped receipt for £3 Gs. T!.'. • plaintiff alleged was simply an acko lodgment for a sum received for v.:. : ' proper receipt had been substituted ' the following day. The evideno

plaintiff; defendant, and Percy accountant, who had endeavored to a ; : ttlenieiri bef bveen the parti taken at great length. The ba . that the unstamped document could m be produced in evidence by the defends unless the fine were first paid, and niu, patiently inspecting the .■:<■■• unts, rden &c, and hearing the evidence sides gave a verdict for the plaintiff!. the amcunl of£6T3s4d with 30 ■'/ Anno Hbgan v. Henrietta 1! claim A'(> Ids 3d for three month in lieu of notice. Plaintiff alio; ~'\ bal engagement with defendant for <'.,,'* months but as this was not borne 1 ]. the evidence »verdict was given foi t2 time actually worked, four weeks at i.j. and IDs costs. Paurini Moke v. Percy Robinson, claim- for £24 the value 1 of seven horset Plaintiff applied for an adjourni several witnesses who owned somi 1 howi ■' in question were unable . - The bench held that if .other pai in a claim for the horses they shi b" n v ed is pi uiitifrrj ia ■ asa adjournment was refused. Evidi 1 taken regarding one horse «' i 1 ~' i •-• claimed but as the animal bore n and ownership could not be u verdict was given for defendai I with £3 3s 6d costs, Mrs Foley acted 0 - inter, prefer, Mrs Chapman v. W. A. William* Plaintiff claimed the delivery o: thefe nj. fer deed of section 14, block 22. town of Rotorua. Plaintiff in her evidence alleged that she had bought '.he transferoi the section in question from the defendaiit for £l6; she admitted that a sum of £3 Us was duo and had offered to pay that amount on delivery of the deed, .but it had been refused ; since the ; the rent c.i' the section had been paid bj her to the Government. In cross-examin-ation witness denied that her husband was tho purchaser; she was first offered the section for £8 but on the removal of tho Palace Hotel to 'l* present site the price was raised to £l6. T. Chapman corroborated the evidence 1 E I is wife. He also stated thai aft ir ,I ■ si • ad lyment h-'d been made ( !> del nli 1 I the deed] were handed over and sen to Auckland for < pletion. The-.- were however returned to defendant as they had not been properly drawn up; hearing no more of them they wrote to Auckland and on fretting a reply ho asked defendant about them; defendant stated that he was retaining the de dfi as security for what hj» (witness) owed him; witiiess admitted the balance of £3 2s. which had been tendered b> defendant. In cross-examina-tion witness slated: The arrangements were made with my wife, not with me; I got the timber for building the hons# from you. At this stage defendant asked if the Court ha<l jurisdiction in regard to a title to land. The bench held that there was no question of title involved. Defendant in his evidence stated that he sold the land originally to Chapman and supplied him with timber and iron to build tho house on credit, £8 was the price agreed on then but as nothing waspaid and the Palace Hotel had been removed to its present site ho wrote to Chapman stating that he would henceforth t.ieai them as tenants and charge a rent; Chapman then came to him and agreed to pay £\o for the section but asked that tho transfer might be made out in the name of his wife; witness agreed to this. The section had cost the greater part of the money in rent. &c. A statement which had bean produced showed the whole of plaintiff's indebtedness re section, timber, &c. The bench stated that 110 counter claim could be considered then.

Defendant resuming said tlr.t ho liml sold the land !■> chapman anf. was not to transfer (he hind to Ids wife till the debt was cleared. He bad received no offer of the £3 2s alleged. Tie bench bavin? pcruscdthe transfer deed in question hold that as it was made ou', in the name of Mrs Chapman and she was willing to complete her part of the transaction ordered that the deed be completed and handed over to the Clerk of the Court for delivery to plaintiff on payment of £3 2s Costs of 6s wereallowed. Defendantwas informed that it was open for him to brinp; a separate action against Chapman for the money owing for timber. &c. This concluded Ihe business and t!r Conrt adjourned.