Magistrats's Court Queenstown.

Lake Wakatip Mail, Issue 1515, 15 January 1886, Page 5

Magistrats's Court Queenstown.

Mostoat, lira January, 1886.

(Before H. S. Hickaon, Esq.. RM.)

J W. Robertson and Co. v. G. Rhoder, Dipton.— Claim for £7 10s, lees £6. pud for carriage of 600 sheep. No aupearnice of defendant Mr Turton, for plaintiffs asked for expenses for J. M'Neill, a member of the late firm who gave evidence. Expenses were allowed, although his Worship thought it was piling on the costs in such a small claim, and judgment was (riven, by default, for amount claimed, with cost*, £3 2* 6d. Same v. Colvillc—Mr Turton. for p'aintiffs, said that a portion of the claim had Iwen paid, und he asked that the case might stand over, as the svmmons bad not been served. Ordered accordingly. J. MDongall v. W. Brook and others* (two eases.—Adjourned till Friday at request of Mr Turton, f»r phvntiff. P. Vail v. J. Wenkhei.n.—Claim for £2O, for alleged wrongful conversion of a l«>&t, dray and harness and one draught mare. Mr Smith, for plaintiff. Mr Vurton, for defendant, pleaded a general denial. Tins caae arose out of a transaction between the parties about August, ISM. P. Vail deposed trr.t about the Ist August, 1884, be Imrrowed £lO from defendant, and yave a* security one draught mare, dray and harness, and a boat mentioned in document produced and »i.-ned by him. This waa an under*tood thing, and £3 5s was to be civet; for interest for three months. At the end of three months he tendered the £l3 5s to pay tor all. He could not read the document. (The Clerk of the Court read the document, which was an agreement for hire of the horse, harness, etc, and was dated Bth Au_«ist, ISM.) Defendant did not receive the £3 5s in advance, hut witness tendered it at the end of the three months, when defendant said it would be better to let it stand over. Valued the articles at £2O.

Cross-examined—Remember John M 'Bride getting a judgment against him for sin.-tics of the pcai«-, aud the <*\it (Jenny Lind) beuiu seized on account, when defendant paid the money under protest. Re-examined—Also tendered mon?y m Mr Monsou's shop at Qui-enstown. I>. fendaut sold the boat three or four weeks since to K. tidied.

(His Worship here complained of interruption on account of so many talking.) K. Mon«-.n deposed that plaintiff wanted to borrow £l3, in order, he said, to pav defendant and get t'S'-k the articles in dispute. Plaintiff brought defendant round to witness'shop and explained tinmatter, when defendant said he was agreeable to return the aiticles if plaintiff paid £l6. This was about 12 mouths ago. Witness told defendant that he had not agreed to advau-e moie than £l3. K. Eldreil nave evidence as to purchasing the l»«at from defendant For the defence.

J. Wenklieim deposed to haring pprohased from plaintiff the property in disprte for £l3 55., and afterwards offering and agreeing with plaintiff to nnt it at ss. per week. He t >ld plaintiff he could repur base it, hut did not state for what amount. An interpleader case, afterwards biought into Court, about the nw nership of the boat was thrown nut as the Magistrate had no jurisdiction. (A letter was here produced from plaintiff, as alleged, asking defendant to allow him to break in his (witness') fillv.) Mr Smith objected to the letter, as plaintiffs signature to it was not proted. Him Worship complained of frequent interruption, ami ex'laiined " How you gentlemen will squabble and finht over trifles. If I no lawyers I could easily settle the difficulty. Ido not see that the filly has anything to do with the case." Mr Turton (c*lml))— "I su not speaLi:ii', your Worship." Kxamin:>tK>n continued—At plaintiffs request witmsi weut to M Miaou's and agreed to sell back the proj*rty for .♦.'2o, or, say, i'l9. Cross examined—'lhe value of the stock, etc., was £l3 55., and plaintiff paid witness £3 ss. in advance for trur nse. Re-examined—Had never been refunded the £5 7s. 61. paid Sergt. Gilbert. His Worship reserved decision till Friday (to-day).

Fbidat (Tub D/.y), 15th Jamcart.

Vail v. Wenkheim.—His Worship jrave reserved judgment M follows :—Tlie evidence before me in this case is very conflicting, the plaintiff swearing he tendered £l3 ss. in notes—the amount due to defendant—at his house, ami defendant swearing be (plaintiff) did not tender it. Defendant, however, admits the offer of £l3 being made at Mr M orison's »hop, which he refused to accept, as plaintiff owed him £l9. It seems to me that plaintiff, in the first instance, sold to defendant absolutely the property named in Exhibit No. 1 for £l3 55., and then an irrangemeut was made between them that the plaintiff should have the nse of that property on payment of ss. a week for 13 weeka. This appears to have been embodied in Exhibit No. 2. The period apparently expired, and pl-.mtiff appears (at home date not given in evidence) to have nffeied defendant £l3 at Mr Monson's shop, which he refused to accept, stating, according to Mr Monson's evidence, that plaintiff owed him £l6. Mr Monson on hearing this declined to advance the £l3 offered by plaintiff, and so far the matter was ended. In the mean tune, i.e., about five weeks since, defendant sells part of the property, viz., the l».at, whi>b appeals to he the only part comerted ; and n»t as the particu'ars of that he lud convert- d all the propert- in Noveudier, ISvS4, or soon thereafter. I must now r> fer to Kxlid.it No 2. which ap|iears to me to Ie a simple agreement. It certainly is not a I all of »aie ; there is no attestation of lU execution, an Ino schednle or inventory attached. If it was litt tided to be a »ill of aale, then it is null and void f.»r want of witiiin 21 da\a after tbe }.r. n g thereof, iam also of opinion that the docu-in-iit in not a nior;- i_e of stock ; there is not one word in it which cotiM lea-1 me to think so ; but if it w.* inteuded to he such, it is null and void, as tbe s'o»-k should ha*e Iwen branded, and the brand p\* •■ ified i:i the mortage, or in some schedule or inventory thereto, or referred to therein. Having .-0-41-- to this conclusion with regard to Exhibit No. 2, I must fall Iwk upon Exhibit No. 1 and the e\ id ii'-e taken at the hearinir, and upon that I have no .onnte o|»en to me that I can see except to give judgment for defendant, with coats; professional lev, £2 2s. I would here lieg to call the attention of counsel to sec'ion 47 of the R.M. Act, 1867, with the view- that the tiny of the Court may not be lieenleasly taken up l>y their contentions, as to u hat evidence shonld or should not be taken.

J. M'Doupilt *' \V. Brock, S. Moore and C. Mitehell.--Claim for £ls Os SI, jioikls supplied. Mr lin ion. f••! plutititf. s.ii.l the dami wan only as against two of tin -I. fen'l mt«, as Mitchell havinir pat-1 lua »han-, £7 10s 4-1, liail not liet-n •miititont-d. No appcaiam-e "f defrmdaiit*. On the <|iiestioti of est*., the Magistrate at first declined to allow plaintiffs expanses, until Mr Turton cited the ruling of Judge Williams in a Supreme Court case at Auckland. He also stated that plaintiff had been brought a distance of 46 miles to attend the Court Toe Magistrate agreed to allow expenses, under the circa instances. Judgment by default for amount olaimed, with costs, £6 oe>

Same v. 8. Moore.—Judgment hj defai. ■ for amount claimed, 14s Bd, with Court cu \7c R. Bond v. F. Warren.—Claim for *ne week a hoard and lodging, £1 6c Judgment by default for amount claimed, with costs, 16s 6d. Same v. A. Cheync Arrow.—Claim for £4 lc 6d., board and refreshments. Mr Smith, for defendant, admitted all except drinks, which, he alleged, were not recoverable. Mr Turton quoted the Licensing Act, showing that drinks taken by bond /de lodgers with meals were allowable. On crossexamination plaintiff consented to take off 13s. charged for liquors. His Worship, in giving judgment, said it was a most mesn way of getting out of d«hr. Men went and tinnled and pnrzled at a public-house, and then repudiated by getting behind the law. Judgment for £3 8c 6d., with costs, 15c Id. J. Wenkheim v. M. Brich.—Summons not served. Adjourned to next Court dsy, Bth February. S. Betts v. T. Shore—Settled out of Court. Same v. P. Rattigan.—Summons not served; time extended to next Court day. Same v. J. Baker.—Claim for £1 14s. 2d., less 4c 6d. contra. Mr Smith for plaintiff. Defendant, in person, pleaded not indebted, and handed in a receipt in full for 11s. 6d., signed F. H. Daniel, per S. G. Darnel. Plaintiff averred that abe had never received the money from F. H. Daniel, who wss acting as her agent, nor did she know anything about the receipt produced. Hia Worship said the signature of F. H. Dauiel had not been proved, and he gave judgment for amount claimed, with costs, 13c 6d.