RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. FOXTON.

Manawatu Herald, Volume III, Issue 45, 4 February 1881, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. FOXTON.

Wednesday, February 2, 1881. (Before R. Ward, Esq., K.M.) a sum: camk. T. P. Williams v. J k Jay.— Claim £19 103, for goods supplied. Mr Haukins, for defendant, said the only dispute was as to £18 for a htirsehciir suite which defendant alloged he had hiied, whereas plaintiff alleged he had bought it. Defendant had paid in the sum of £4, being hire for a year, also tho other items undisputed. Plaintiff deposed — Wheu defendant purchased the suite I agreed to take it back at the end of the year, and give £1-1 for it, if it was in good condition ; that waß on the first occasion we spoke about it ; I asked £ 1 9. for it ; a few days after defendant consented to take it for £18, and promised the money next month ; that was in July last ; next month tho account was sent in, and Mr Jay asked that a separate account might be given him for the suite ; the account was sent in regularl , and on going to defendant several months after the suite had been sold, and asking for the amount, he then offered the £4, which was the difference between wnat I was to give him if the suite was returned, and the £18 he w<>s to pay me ; I dfeolined to accept it ; several other conversations took placo, but I declined to take ba, .k the suite : a propo3ij tion ha 3 been made through Mr Haukiua for me to take back the suite for a consideration ; I decliued to do s •, »n he ha, I prevented me selling it to auother person ; when my January account was sent iii, defendant asked me again to give him a separate account for the suite ; I refused to do so, but offered to credit him with amount he intended to pay ; he then said, "There is some minnmUsrsts-nding — I hifed the Suite, but did uot buy it " ; I I referred him to our previous conversation ; I believe defendant is about to leave Foxton ; I consented to buy it back for £14 auy time within 12 months, if in good condition, fc. By Mr Haukius — I produce my ledger, which shows the amount for the suite ; I did not fUt the item in my day book, being a largo one^ and as payment was to be m ide uexc month ; wheu the bargain tt'as completed my brother Was in the shop ; do- | fendant had not objected to the paym-jn; for the suite — he simply said he could not pay ; I svvoar I have never sent in a bili to Mr Jay, since the transaction, omitting the suite ; I suggested to Mr Jay he initfhi sell the suite to Mr J. Russell, in whose house he lived, and obtain au advance from him to pay me \ I never offered to sell the suite to any person since Mr Jay has hail it ; Ido not recollect any person speakiii. to me recently as to the purchase of thu suite. George Williams, plaintiff's bfother, deposed to being present whun the bargain was struck between the parties ; Mi' Jas said my brother ought kuock off a pound ; he said that would be all right ; Mr Jay said he would send a dray for it ; 1113 brother then «aid if Mr Jay went awaj within 12 mouths he would take back th< suite if it wa* in good condition ; I know my brother expected the money ev«r> month, but did not get it ; I believe Mr •Jay is going away. By Mr Hankius— We do not ordinarily sJI g"ods and agree to take them back a, any time ; I have not heard my brothci oder to sell the suite at any time since Mr Jay bought it. By tho Court — I underatoo I at the tira. the money was to be paid iv a few days, at the beginning of the mouth. Mr fiuikius briefly ad-lreased th>3 Court for the defendant. Joseph Jay deposed — When the neg>tiaions hcijan I told plaintiff 1 did no wish to buy the suite out-and-out ; he tola me he considered the property would be worth £14 at the cud of a year, and aske^ me £19 for it ; the suite was not complete, oae armchair being missing ; I offered t> pay him £4 for the use of it for the year : this conversation took placo outside in ■: back store ; only our two selves were preReuc ; he sent me an account in August, produced ; I deny that I askud him to omit the suite from this account ; three moults after I had got the «uito he told mo he ha*l a lot of bills to meet, and asked me for ' IS oil the suite, promising to return l'14;i:. the end of t 0 year ; every time he chan;eii me for tho suite I returned the account au4 denied the corn-ctnesa of it ; he suggested to me Mr John Russell might buy the suite ; iz was no benefit to mo, and I ducliued to ask him ; he asked me that on two different occasions ; I may be leaving Fox ton in chree months. By Mr Williams— l did not bring you this account and nsk you to make out a bill giviuii a separate item for the suite. Plaintiff declined to cross-examine defendant; any further. S. M. Baker deposed — Ou the day Mr Jiv agreed to take the suite I saw MWilliams ; I agreed to give his price if tlie suite was complete ; an armchair was missing : I heard that Mr Jay had rented thu suite, but do not kuow whether it was pliiutiff or defendant who told mo so ; afterwards I was willing to buy the suite is it was, but was told Mr J.iy had taken it ; when Mr Williams came to the Court to take out the summons. I a»ked him before I knew he wa* suing for the st'ite ; if ii was for sale, being under the impression M Jiy ha 1 simply hire.i it. By pla nt ff— l do not know whether it was you or Mr Jay who ga.e mo to understand the suite was rented. By the Cou t— l was to pay £18 for it, ami if I had tab en it would h.ave paid cash. John R. ltusaell deposed — Mr Jay rents a house from me ; ho wont into the house last July; no one has ever offered to sell mo the suite which is the subject of this action. Mr Hanldns said the matter in dispute was one of evidence. Mr Jay was temporarily in tho town, and it wan unlikely he would buy an expensive suite. Mr Williams aaid it was most improbable ho would stand out of the use of the money for a year, when Mr Biker had offered to buy it for cash. His Worship said the evidence being directly opposite, he had to infer from the ci ecu instances of the case. He thought a s ile was effected of the suite, and wouM i^ive judgment for amount claimed ami c >sts. At the same time ho waa cleat ly of opinion that Mr Williams had agreed to return Jt'l4 to Mr Jay in the event of th« suito being sent back in good condition. Judgment for amount and costs, 23d. civil casks. 11. Wilson v. A Gordon.— Claim £6 12s, rent of houses and Uud. Mr Hankins appeared for plaintiff. The defendant admitted the amount as correct, but said that under a verbal agreement the amount was not due. Judgment was given for plaintiff for amount and costs, 32a. Defendant asked for time to pay the amount in, but Mr Hankins stated that the previous evening he had cleared the whole of his things .out of the^cottages to evade the judgment. The judgment was made immediate. C. Honor* v. J. M'Solvin. — Claim 7s 61, for one bag of potatoes. No appearance of defendant. Judgment ex parte for amount and costs, Bs. RAILWAY BYELAWS. Jut. Dorwa wm obnrgvd with ft breach

of the railway bye-laws by jumping otF a train when in motion on November 30, 1880. | Defendant admitted the charge, and was 1 fined 104 and costs, 7s. (