R.M. COURT.

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume X, Issue 314, 30 June 1888, Page 2

R. M. COURT.

(Befori J, Allen, Esq., Fbiday, June 29 a eenholdkrs’ eisEE. W. Acton-Adams v. Tnom Car ter claim of LIOO. This ease b been journed on several occasions Mr Oon o ]jJ for plaintiff, Mr Sinclair forfendant. * Mr Sinclair asked for a fur adjourn, ment, as his evidence fding y" set-off was not ready. Mr Conolly said he woule to hare judgment entered up at orW he rratT tired of theso rip:ated adjaenfe. judgment were given at Hfefl could bo stayed until the set-oif was Mr Siucbdr was very stand his f:lend had taken Sinclair) could show that paid the rent claimed long ago. Plaintiff, it seemed, had waited until rll the witnesses had died, or had become scattered throughout the colony before he had taken proceedings in the matter, and then ho wrated judgment to be given in his favor all at once. Plis Worship said he would have to have evidence as to the set-off, and granted an adjournment until 13th July. APPLICATION T 1 TAKE EVIDENCE. D. J. S. Creech v. C. Avis, a da : m of Lot’, In this case defendant made an application to have his evidence taken in Wei. line-ton. Mr Sinclair, who appeared for the plaintiff, asked that the defendant should be ordered to pay the costs of the adjournu er.t, as he noticed that he {defendant) had not inaue the application, uutil a week after the service, Mr Sinclair had seen »

solicitor in Wellington who had advised defendant to coma to Blenheim and give his evidence in person. Still, ho would not oppo.-e the application, but ho would like his Worship to make it a condition that if defendant could not give a good reason for the delay, he should have to pay the costs. His Worship held the same view of tho matter, and accordingly extended tho case to the '2oth July. A. SMALL CLAIM.

W. Wills v Thomas Henderson, a claim of 15s sd. No appearance of defendant. Judgment was given by default for plaintiff, and 6s costs. JUDGMENT SUMMONS.

. W. Fr#eth v Charles Patchett, a claim B of L43sßd on a j idtrur nt summons. C No appearance of defendant. 1 ' v -. In reply to Ilis Worship, plaintiff said that defendant hud had constant work of late, he having been working on a threshing machine. Ho believed he was earning L2 per week, lie had a family, and there was a grown-up bny working with him. Witness would take payment in weekly instillin' nt< of 8s or 10.-. His Worship said he preferred this course to sending the nun to gaol. lie would make an order for payment of the account in weekly instalments of 10s each, the first- instalment to fall duo on July 6, failing payment of any one instalment, the whole remaining amount to fall dno. Sutherland v Rush, a claim of L 4 8s 3jd for meat supplied, milking cows and killing aud curing pigs. The debt was said to have been contracted in 1884. Defendant put in a set-off claim amounting to L 3 2s 4d for gates and posts, harness, chains, etc, lent to plaintiff.

Mr M'Callum appeared for plaintiff, and Mr M‘Nab for defendant. The plaintiff, William Sutherland, was then placed in the witness box, and having been duly sworn, lie was examined by Mr M‘ Jalluin. The first remark made to him was • “ TliPre is a credit set down in your account for a maul and wedges.” Witness: What? L2 <ss for a maul and wedges? The thing is ridiculous! It can’t be in my handwriting. The witness having been pacified, continued his evidence as follows : The whole amount of the goods supplied to defendant and tho Services rendered to him is LG J7s 9LI. I received cash 4s (id, and havo allowed L2 os for a maul and wedges. Witness, immediately on making this statement, contradicted himself, and said that defendant made a present of the maul and wedges !o him. To Mr M'Nah: The entries in tho book which I produce, were rando out of a book which I havo at home. Defendant had the meat, and my wife can prove it. (In a loud cone) I can prove that I supplied meat to defendant’s wife after she left him. I never supplied her with any meat after she left the premises. I did kill tho pig. Mr M'Nah: But Mr Rush says there was no pig there to kill. Witness: He kuows very well that’s a lie.

Examination continued : I never cut defendant’s straw in consideration of his having lent rao money. That (in a loud voice, with hand upraised, and addressing tho whole court) that’s the way he treats all his neighbors by falsehood. I was never paid for cutting the straw. I never received a sixpence from him, but I have given him many a one, and that lie well knows.

When tho witness had concluded his evidence, he was told to stand down from the box, but not to go away as ho might be wanted later on. Witness (with a significant shake of the head): Oh, don’t you bo afraid ; I’m not away ; no four of me going away. Sarah June Sutherland, plaintiff’s wife, was the next witness called. She knew of her own knowledge that tho articles were delivered to tho defendant. A little meat was given to his wife after he left her.