A BICYCLE TRANSACTION.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XXXII, Issue 139, 21 June 1898, Page 2

A BICYCLE TRANSACTION.

' A case arising out of a bioyole transaction occupied the attention oj Mr Robinson, S.M., for an how and a half at the Magißtrate'a Qowk yesterday afternoon, J. C. Meroer, olaimud from A, Miller (who desorihed himself aa an engineer) the return of a bioyole hired b*/ defendant on April Bth last, and for tho sum of £1 6s 6d as the hire of the machine Bin.-.c that date, being at the. xate ofl2s 6d a week, whioh plaiutif*; alleged was the oharge agreed, upon, the bioyole i g ™ o<i *? te * tftted for one week only, Tfce aotion waß brought by means <tf •* *' B hort service summons, ' the plain- « ' ,a 7 m e sw<>r n an affidavit to the effeot that he believed defendant, was about to leave the dißtrictv Mr Fell appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Percy Adams for the defendant. When the. defendant (who was not present till a few minutes after the opening of the case) appeared Mr Adama ; asked for an adjournment of the oase till this morning, in order that .defendant miriit have an opportunity ft, seonre witnesses and prepare, Wa defence, as well as to instrrijeteoujnseimore My thanhe had had an opportunity of doing ft the three quarters of an hour that, had elapsed since he was se^eij- with the summons Mr Adams characterised the proceedines as i very harsh and. said, the defe«oant.' who was at present residing; ft Nelson with, his «rrfe,. hadwinteationwhWevw' ' of leaving tfce.plape, Tte plaintiff, hid no right tp. wa|e suoh an affidavit aa he ' Had wde without , being prepared to v prove fche truth of his statement. -TP v& '■ The ifogistrate said .that a summons' < of tho present nature was issued.ojt thi - .'■ i ■ ' -',-• -•''v'.-.77:','''..j;'i^>S i

'T'V'S'"'*'**-'.-^ ! sfroirh (riatement o-Y«-e MW«:",WW^g i.^vj^ fdr^it^whbYwf-B T lmhte^.^anVte'diot- ■ >.";^'' ment for peinnry.if he' ewOrefal seljtfYYppp^i . . Mr' Fell said", he .v^oWj '-'consent *l,o,anv;.:;...;:'-;7 adjournment provided that' the defendant :p , 7' was abieto satisfy, .the Court: that >'bo' had ■ :".'• "V no intention oMeaving Nelaon, the belief . 7v)7. ' of the plaintiff, being that be intehdod' to 7 -p, sail by the e.e.' Takapuna that eyetfugp ', ■ '■'■•'•. ■' Mr Bobinsonsaid that tw the defendant; „ \; had not indicated his line of he' "7 Y. could nofc grant the adjournment. .' ..'■{'/.. •;>": .. The plaintiff, in 'his- evidenceY'Stated:' <p7 that on April Bfch,- the . defendant!, ,' who ;'■:.. \ was a stranger to him," hired a ,'l.icyolo ' ?-;; from him for a' week, for which he agreed to pay 12s 6d. About'eighfc days after- •■'.';; wards defendant's wife went to witness P; and tendered a week's payment for the 7 . 1( machine, stating that her husband was at Belgrove, and wonld be returning to Nel- . son in a few dayß. Witness did not take,. . " fche money, bnfc said he wonld await the defendant's return, when the whole,' amount due could be paid. He did not see either defendant nr the machine after ■ * this, but a week or two ago he learned '•' p thathe was at Hokitika. He, wired t0... him, threatening proceedings if , the may .' , chine was not returned, and tbo defendant sent an impertinent telegram in reply. Defendant returned to Nelson last Friday, and on Satnrday afternoon, when - witness made an attempt fco see him, he was told by his wife that he was asleep. He went again shortly after 11 o'olook' ' the same evening, bufc was then told the defendant, was too tired to see him. In consequence of this failure to obtain satisfaction, and a report that the defendant intended to leare the distriot, he took the present proceedings. In cross-examination, the plaintiff denied that defendant offered to pay him, ' £1 on account when he took the maohine. The offer to pay the amount was made by defendant's wife eight days afterwards, and nofc three or four weeks afterwards. The payment offered was a week's and not a months or three weeks' hire. He did not know till lately thafc defendant's wife . was living in Nelson. Ifc was in conse- '. quonoe of information received four or five weeks ago that he began to mistrnsb defendant. He gained a great deal of in* formation about him on Sunday,' He did not ask defendant for his name and addresß when he took the bioycle he treated all men as'honest till they ware proved otherwise. , Mr Adams asked the plaintiff to state who told him that defendant was leaving the district, but, on the advice of Mr FeU the witness declined to answer, and his Worship upheld the refusal. i The defendant deposed tbat he hired a bicyole from plaintiff, who told him that the terms were 10a or 12s 6d for a week or £1 a month. Witness took the maohine, ' and said he wonld have it for '* a few weeks anyway." He told plaintiff he was going ;into the country. Plaintiff asked him for his name and address, and he gave them to him. He offered plaintiff £1 on account, but the latter declined to . take it, saying that it , would do when he ' brought it baok. Witness then went fco the "West Coast, after staying for a week or so at Belgrove. .Ashe had kept the maohine for over a month he considered he was liable for payment only at the rate of £1 a month. Plaintiff conld have the machine back at any time. He nad no intention of leaving the town, He believed plaintiff had taken the present proceedings in consequence of whathe had been told by somebody in the town who desired to prove that witness waa & villain and a vagabond, &c. When he obtained the maohine he did not know whether he wonld require it for a week or a month. _By Mr Fell : He did nofc go to see plaintiff on Saturday, aB he did nofc think there was any desperate hurry. Whilst he was afc Reefton he instructed his wife to call and pay plaintiff something on account. He did not tell plaintiff thafc ha was going to Hokitika ; lie did not know it himself. He wished to oall his wife and another person as witnesses, but they were not in plaintiff's shop when the bargain was made, \ Mr Adams again asked for an adjournment, bufc Mr fiobinson said ifc was olear that the witnesses knew nothing of be arrangement, and that therefore their evidenoe conld not affect the caße. Judgement was given for the amonnt claimed ' with £1 lis Court fees, and £1 lis counsel's fee. Defendant agreed to give up fche bicycle, and plaintiff said he would send to defendant's residence for it at once.