DEFENDED ACTIONS

Northland Age, Volume 26, Issue 40, 23 February 1927, Page 3

DEFENDED ACTIONS

* Wairama Mahi and Co. [Mr. Miller] v. Uretich [Mr. Maclennan]. This was a series of actions brought by the plaintiffs for amounts totalling £241. Mr. Miller said these actions arose out of the same set of circumstances and he suggested that with his friends approval that they could be divided up as follows:First, there was an action for trespass and chattels which stood more or less by itself. Then there was an action for £SO for trespass on land which could be taken by itself and there were three actions for return of bullocks. Then there was an action for £9O and one for £B4. It was necessary that these separate actions should be taken because the bullocks were the property of different persons but the bullocks were worked together and the seizure took place at the same time in respect of all the bullocks. Mr. Maclennan:- I have issued a writ for damages in the Supreme Court which has been served as for something like £7OO. I ask that these cases be adjourned pending the hearing of the Supreme Court writ. lhe Magistrate:- I don’t see why I should. Mr. Maclennan: The plaintiffs to get within the jurisdiction of this court have divided what actually is one case into a series of claims and considering the case from the point of view of my clients I could not plead in this court. My case is to be heard in the Supreme Court [m May and I am in the position of not being able to go on here to-day. It will be quite a simple matter for Your Worship to adjourn these actions until after the Supreme Court has disposed of the writ which I have issued. The Magistrate: Have you any authority in support of your application. Mr. Maclennan: I am not concerned with any authorities in support of my application, but I merely say that it is usual in the circumstances I have placed before the court that it is usual to grant an adjournment. Mr. Miller: I am instructed to oppose an adjournment. The Magistrate: If Mr. Miller will not agree to an adjournment then I cannot ses how I can adjourn the ca=es and they must go on. Mr. Maclennan : Then I will be placed in the position of being unable to go on as I am not ready. All my papers are in Auckland. I ask Mr. Miller now to agree to an adjournment. Mr. Miller: I can’t agree to any adjournment. The Magistrate : Well wc will have to go on. Mr. Miller outlined the facts stating that plaintiffs owned block of land at

Ahipara and established a sawmill there and defendants undertook to dispose of the timber on a commission of £lO per £IOO. They also provided certain implements and plaintiffs agreed to procure their stores from defendants. Subsequently defendants seized certain parts of the plant and the bullocks. Evidence to this effect was given by Wairama Mahi.

With the aid of Mr. J. N. Bergiian as interpreter Wairama Mahi gave evidence to the effect that he had never agreed to defendants going on to his property at any old time. Under cross-examination by Mr. MacJennan be admitted that Uretich was to act as a supervisor of the work connected "with the mill.

The evidence of several other witnesses was heard, this being similar to the facts outlined.

Mr. Maclennan said lie did not propose calling evidence. He was relying entirely on the agreement produced. The case for the plaintiffs rested on the evidence of a man and a woman and the defence further relied on an equitable lien over this Maori land. The agreement set out that defendants should supply finance. The mere fact that these men had kept books did not constitute anything in favour of the plaintiffs in as much that they purported to set out the position of the natives financially and thus gave them a chance of redeeming themselves. Financing the plaintiffs gave the defendants a lien on the property. Mr. Miller said this was a deliberate entry and trespass and where these defendants absolutely look the law into their own hands to make a show of force they took the police with them and this as a witness stated “put the wind up the plaintiffs when defendants went to carry out their project. If ever there was a case for exemplary damages this is one,and as no evidence is offered for the other side it is a question for substantial damages,” concluded Mr. Miller. The Magistrate said he would consider this case next morning. Wairama Mahi & Co v Uretich & Urlich, claim £llO, judgment tor plaintiff with costs £l6 16s. Eliza Snowden v J Urlich, claim £l7, judgment for piaintiff with costs £4 I is. Wairama Mahi v J Urlich, claim £SO, judgment for plaintiff for £2O with costs £4 7s.