HAWERA R.M. COURT.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XX, Issue 2348, 9 February 1893, Page 2

HAWERA R.M. COURT.

Wednesday, February Bth. (Before C. 0. Kettle Esq., R.M.) MoKirdy v. White.— This was an applioation for a re-hearing of the Eltham ptone-throwmg case, already reported. Mr. Welsh for appellant; Mr. Matthews for respondent. The matter bad been adjourned from last sitting. Mr. Matthews Baid his client was prepared to reiterate on oath that he saw White throw the stones. He considered that the application for a re-bearing was made for the purpose of delaying the payment of the fine. His Worship said he had decided to grant a re-heating. The facts were that since the hearing of tbe case Sergt. Stagpool and Constable Patterson had given certain information to Mr. Welsh which put a new light on the case. He did not think the police were right in giving information outside their office. They should have communicated with the court. The appellant would have to lodge security (the amount of fine and costs, with £5 extra) by 10 o'olook next morning. If not lodged by that time, the former order would stand. The re-hearing would take place tbat day fortnight. Nolan, Tonks and Co. v. J. Adamson. — Claim, £5 15s for rent due. Judgment for amount claimed and costs, £1 11s. ! Mr. Caplen for plaintiffs. Same v. Pipe.— Claim, £3 13s, price of a cow bought at plaintiffs' Bale. Judgment for amount and costs. Mr. Caplen for plaintiffs ; Mr. Welsb for defendant. Bayley r. Mataike.— Claim, £3. This case had been adjourned from a previous sitting, and in the meantime a new summons ha.d been issued, naming James Smith, ot Te Aro House, Wellington, as plaintiff. Plaintiff asked for the case to be struck out, whioh waa done, costs (half a guinea) being allowed. Mr. Caplen for plaintiff; Mr. Welsh (instructed by Mr. Hutchison) for defendant.

James Smith v. Mataike,— Mr. Oaplen for plaintiff; Mr. Welsh (instructed by Mr. Hutchison) for defendant. Defendant was indebted to a storekeeper named A. H. Duff for £3, and piaintiff was assignee in the estate. C. R. Bayley produced a memorandum 6igned by defendant admitting the debt, and also a written | authority from James Smith, of Wellington, to aot as agent and sue for amount. Mr. Welsh submitted that notice of assignation from Daff to Smith should have been given in writing to defendant ; and he applied for a nonsuit.— Nonsuit granted, with costs. Hutchinson v. Wilson.— Mr. Matthews for plaintiff; Mr. Barton for defendant. Plaintifl bad placed a horse in the paddock of defendant (a livery-stablekeeper), and the animal had been lost. He had paid 53 a day to Stretton and Jobson for übo of tbe horse. Plaintiff bad not seen the horse since it was lost. .The action was for wrongfal detention, value of horse {£5), and 5s a day from the time it was lost. Plaintiff had since been informed that the borse had been found. The fences were oat of repair. [The owner of tbe horse, Mr. Stretton, in reply to tbe Bench, said if be got the animal back, he would claim a coople of pounds from plaintiff for its use.J Tbe defence was that there was no evidenoe to Bhow how the horse got out of tbe paddock, and that no negligence bad been proved on the part of the defendant ; that the horse might have itself broken the fence ; and that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence inasmuch as he passed the paddock several times and took no steps to prevent the animal getting out. Defendant swore that he had never charged piaintiff anything for putting his borse in the paddock. He considered the horse had either jumped tbe fence, or slipped the rope with which plaintifl, bad tied it in the yard. Plaintiff wasnonßuited.withoosts.the Court holding that tbe action could only be sustained if^pialntiff could prove tbat the defendant had been negligent. Defendant had proved that the fences were not out of repair. The probability was that tbe borse bad got out of the yard after being tied np by plaintiff. Hornby v. Friesseberg.— Mr. Caplen for plaintiff; Mr. Welsh for defendaut.Plaintiff is a chemist, and defendant a medical practitioner. Claim for money lent (£l4), rent of consulting room, and for medicine dispensed. The defendant had given an i.o.u. payable on 25th February for the £14, and the action was brought on tbe grounds of deceit having been practised, inasmuch as the money had not been epent for the purpose for which it was borrowed. Defendant bad Btated that ne bad Beonrity in the shape of over £140 worth of drugs which he had brought from Australia, and that he had money m tbe bank. The defence was tbat tbe room was lent to defendant without charge, as plaintiff would benefit by the doctor's presence in the same premises. The money had been lent, but no deceit or misrepresentation had been practised. The i.o.u. was not due till 25th February, and until the expiry of that time tbe amount could not be sued for. Defendant swore that he had over £40 in a bank in Western Australia. His Worship said the whole affair of borrowing tbe money was very '• fishy." Defendant could have borrowed the money from Sharland, of Auokland, or forwarded to his creditor an order on tte bank in Australia where bie money was lying. Judgment for £14 (money lent), 8s 6d (for drugs), and costs.

Ellis v. Mudford.— Mr. Caplen (instructed by Mr. Hankins, of Palmerston) for defendant. Plaintiff is the divorced wife of Madford, by whom she bad four children. Defendant took charge of tbe children after the divorce. One child (a Rirl of 13 years) left him two years ago, and returned to tbe mother, saying defendant bad told his second wife to put her oat. Defendant had not paid any maintenance for the child sinoe she had run away, and the claim was to make Mudford contribute to the child's support. Defendant strongly objected to pay anything to the mother, but wanted the ohild sent to an industrial sohool. Postponed for a fortnight in order to make enquiries.

Searle and Johansen v. Major. — Mr. Welsh for defendant; Mr. OapJen (inBtructed by Mr. Pownall) for plaintiff. An application to take evidence in a case to be beard at Masterton. C. E. Major stated that be was instructed by Mr. Howard, of the Commercial Hotel, to dispose of the business. Whatever goodwill he obtained he was to retain as commission. Saarle came to Hawera, and defendant told him what rent of hotel was, and approximately what business was being done. Searle and Johansen deoided to take the business, and save defendant a deposit of £100 and signed a p.n. for £250 for the goodwill. Plaintiff knew that the £250 for goodwill was the commission defendant was to receive. Mr. Howard asked Searle if his license bad ever been endorsed, or if be ever bad any difficulties with the police, as his lease was a strict one, and the landlord would nob consent if there was anything of that sort. Searle replied there was notbing whatever against him. Defend* ant would not have taken any steps to negotiate the sale if be had been aware Searle had been prooeeded against; ior offences under the Licensing Aot. Hutson, the landlord, refused to consent to tbe transfer. Defendant sent back to plaintiffs tbe p.n. for £250 and tbe deposit of £100, less £25, wbicb was retained. Was certain be had fifteen interviews with Howard and Searla and Johansen in respect to the business. Searle never told him Jobannen was to be the licensee. In addition to the interviews there were many letters and telegrams sent in connection with the negotiations.— T, J

Howard, formerly licensee of the Com* mercial Hotel, also gave evidence, whioh was mainly a corrobbration of the defendant's evidence.— Sergeant Stagpool stated that be was asked by Mr. Hut son about Searle. He bad told Hntson he had made enquiries and wonld oppose the granting ot a lioense to Searle.— E. D. Welsh) solioitor, stated that be acted as solicitor and agent for Mr. Hntson in the proposed gale of Commercial Hotel, and detailed steps be had taken in the matter.