MAGISTERIAL.

Marlborough Express, Volume XXVI, Issue 66, 21 March 1890, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

Blenheim, Fbiday Mabch 21. (Before Mr J. Allen, R.M.) ctol cases. In the following cases judgment went by default :— W. B. Girling and Co v. John Walsh, £9 13s ; Smale and Hay v. A. J. C. Ward, £2. C. M. Brewster (Mr Mclntire) v. Erskine Soott; £5. Mr Mclntire said there was some mistake about the service. The summons had been served on a person who accepted service on defendant's behalf. It was a question whether the Magistrate would ratify the service. His Worship held that the service was bad. Mr Mclntire was prepared to prove that all diligence had been used in endeavoring to serve defendant. A. Lucas, clerk to Mr Mclntire, deposed that he used all possible diligence. He met a member of the company to which defendant belonged, and that person. said he would accept service on defendant's behalf. His Worship said this was very well, but defendant might actually deny the authority of the person to accept service. He was of opinion that not sufficient diligence had been shown. He would, at plaintiff's request,* extend the hearing for three weeks, to enable defendant to be W. Litchfield and Son v. W. Guest, £9 10s, on two dishonored promissory notes. Judgment by default. Ramsay v. Sutherland, £12 15. Mr Rogers for plaintiff, Mr Sinclair for defendant There was also across action, Sutherland v. Ramsay. W. Ramsay, gardener, deposed that in 1886 to 1887 he worked for defendant. The account was for work done at various times, cash, etc. Witness proved, the (jcrreetneßs of the various items.

To Mr Sinclair: I kept the accounts I noted down in my pocket book, roaghly. I have not got the notes from which I made the entry in the pocket book, When I went to prison the book was on me, but all the entries were not there. I was away from Blenheim about nine months. (Counsel cross-examined witness a3 to the correctness of the items,) I lent him £6 for the purchase of a cow. If he says I lent him £2 and that he paid it back the same night he will be telling an untruth. I had a partner named Evans. We were indebted in the sum of £5 3d to Mr Sutherland. I had a conversation with Evans this morning; he said he had a summons to appear at Court to-day. We did not talk about this subject. He went away directly he had told me he was subpoenaed to appear. Sutherland was on the lodge for eight weeks, and I worked for him during that time. I got £1 from him on one occasion. ; I was on good terms with defendant. I have seen him enter things in his books. I never took advantage of him by looking into his book. I did not sue him before, beoause I. believe in reasoning with a person. He denied everything, but I stuck to "him, and he engaged to pay me £2 r 10s monthly. He paid one instalment but no more. He pleaded hard- up. He gave me an order on Redfern but that gentleman had gone away. He paid me £1, 'but I could not get any iriore. This was in August. I meant to reason with him and so delayed suing him. This £2 10s was not a loan. He is my bitterest enemy, and he wouldn't lend me money. I did not collect for defendant, as I am not a debt collector. I kept the order on Redfern (produced) as an : evidence .that Sutherland owed me money. When I waß : in trouble I did not want money. Chaplin took "care of my things. Sutherland had them, and would not give them up for along time. T called on Sutherland at that time to piy up, but he denied the liability. I wanted £20 for' my defence in the Supreme Court, * : This was the plaintiff's case. 1 Mr Sinclair said the defence .was .that several of the items were pure inventions. Defendant had owed plaintiff £5 10s, but thatwaß all the liability there had been. Counsel said it was clear the £6 loan was fictitious, and that plaintiff's declaration of it was wilful and corrupt perjury. / W. Sutherland: Knew Ramsay first in November, 1886. In February Bth, 1888, plaintiff went away for nine months. He lived, at Aihersfoote.- yisited him. Saw ho books. Never saw a diary. He never lent nfe £6 ; he lent me £2, and I returned it at once. (Witness denied several charges for labour). , JDe'nt him: £2 10s and £1, out of charity. McNab asked me for £20. Told him I owed nothing to Ramsay. Never destroyed his spade. He used mine. Gave him a Bpade. There was an arrangement for working out the account between Ramsay, find Evans and myself. Had seen' Evans who could depose to the truth of this. To Mr Rogers : Defendant exhibited his book, and the various items were gone ' into. Lent Ramsay a copy of the. account. Lent it to him after; he returned from Wellington. He pleaded poverty. Paid him the £1 because 1 was afraid of him. Do not : dispute accounts when they are correct. " v; J. Evans (of the late firm of Evans and Ramsay) deposed that his firm owed £5 3s' to Sutherland;' Made an arrangement for repayment.' Am surprised to find Ramsay denying the agreement.. . ■ ■_,-. > To Mr Rogers: Ramsay used to work for Sutherland at intervals.: I do not know how often. : This was defendants case. . For the defence Mr Sinclair asked His Worship to dismiss the case as a stale demand, unsubstantiated by reliable evidence. .;His Worship found the case very complicated. He was more inclined to believe in , Sutherland's records than ; Ramsay's. The latter' had failed to prove his case] iPlaintiff would be nonsuited, with ,costs;abg professional fee £2 2s; and. ex•jsense of a witness Bs.