R.M. COURT.

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume X, Issue 314, 19 May 1888, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

Friday, May ISt h, ISSS. (Before J. Allen, Esq., R.M.) CIVIL CASES. W. Earp and Co, v J. Jones, a claim of L 23 10s 7d. Mr Conolly appeared for plaintiffs; no appearance of defendant. Judgment for plaintiffs for amount claimed, and LI Gs costs. C.M. Brewster v Tilson Smith (Napier), a claim of L 7. Verdict by default for amount claimed, and Gs costs. F. C. Litchfield v A. Geeson, a claim of Bs. Defendant admitted the debt. Judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with Cs costs.

T, Bilby v G. Swanson, a claim of LlO 15s Gd. In this case an application was made to have evidence taken. Defendant’s evidence was accordingly taken, and forwarded to Wellington; costs, 10s.

Litchfield and Son v F. Moore ; claim, LI Os 7d for goods supplied. Defendant appeared before the Magistrate and said that he owed the amount claimed, but that lie could not get any work to do, and was not able to pay the debt. Judgment was given for plaintiffs, with fis costs, Mary M’Mahon v Robert Middlemiss, a claim of L 3 8s for rent. No appear • anee of defendant. Verdict for amount claimed, and fis costs. G. Henderson v Arthur Gceson, a c’aim of L 7 Is. Verdict for amount, and LI 1-1-3 costs.

Taylor Bros, v J. Old, an interpleader summous case. Mr Rogers appeared for the claimants Ada Old and John Tucker Robinson; and Mr Conolly for Taylor Bros. After lengthy argument bycounsel, His Worship reserved judgment until the 28th May. Rogers and Barloymnn v J. K.Little, a claim for LO 2s.—Adjourned to the 25tli May. Conolly and Son v J. K. Little, a claim of Ll 3 19s 9d.—Adjourned to the 25th May. juDaiiExr.

Before delivering judgment in the case, Colonial Bank v W. Nesbitt, which was reserved from last Friday, His Worship recalled Mr Thomson, manager of the Colonial Bank, who stated that if there had been any agreement made between Mr Hornby and the former, manager, thero would be some record of it. _ Witness searched for. it, but he could find no trace of it. In his opinion no such agreement had ever been made. The Bank had discounted the bills, and they were still unpaid. Mr M‘Nab: I did not understand before that the bills had been discounted. His Worship said the case appeared to be a simple one, and yet ? bad one. The claim was for two dishonored promissory notes of L4l 19s -Id each. On the bills being dishonored, notice had been sent by the Bank to all parties, and a demand had been made for payment. They had, however, never been paid. For the defence, it was set up that the' notes were forgeries, and that there was an agreement between John Hornby and the former manager of the Bank to the effect that defendant, Nesbit, should be allowed to work out the value of the bills. The statement made by Hornby as to the agreement was entirely denied by the present manager, Mr Thompson, who had stated, on being re-called, that, he had searched for the record of such agreement, but he could find no trace of it whatever. With regard to the defence of forgery, it had evidently been dropped. At all events, counsel for the defence hud not pressed the point. . Mr 31‘Nab : No, Your Worship. His Worship said that taking all the evidence into consideration, all he could do under the circumstances would he to enter up judgment for the plaintiffs for amount claimed. . Mr M'Nab : Then I shall give notice of appeal, on the ground that Mr Thompson’s evidence ought not to have been taken. I hold that the former manager, Mr MTverrow, is the only man who can o-ive evidence on the point; and he should have been brought here in the case. Mr Conolly: I will offer no objection. His Worship said that if the plaintiffs had evidence and did not produce it, he could not help it; Mr M’Nab said the proper thing to do would be to enter a non-suit. His Worship : But I understand the

plaintiffs to say that there is no agree' ment in existence.

Mr M‘Nab : If you grant me a rehearing, I will undertake to call Mr M'Konow.

His Worship said he would do so with the greatest of pleasure. At the same time, he would point out that Hornby had never said the agreement was in writing. That was a strong point in the evidence. Hal Hornby said that the agreement was in writing, His Worship would have stopped him at once, and asked him where it was. Mr Thompson had also searched for a record of it, but he could not find it. / Mr M‘Nab said that ns there was a sitting of the Court on Saturday morning, he would give his friend, Mr Conolly, notice of re-hearing before that time. His Worship allowed L 3 Is Court costs, and L 3 3s professional fee.