WATERBURY WATCHES ARE ALWAYS ACCURATE. THEY DEFY COMPETITION. PRICES FROM 13s 6d to Ł5 5s. MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

North Otago Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8012, 27 June 1894, Page 3

WATERBURY WATCHES ARE ALWAYS ACCURATE. THEY DEFY COMPETITION. PRICES FROM 13s 6d to Ł5 5s. MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

YKSTKllDAY. (Before Major KocMoll, S.M.) CIVIL CASKK. Reid and Gray v. Georgo Sullivan, claim L2 16s ; judgment by default for amount claimed, with (ii costs. John Orr and Co. v. Hotiry Watson, claim L4 3s Id. The debt was admitted, and tlio dofendant was ordored to pay the amount by monthly instalments, with 6s costs. It. Davis v. Jas. M'Vey. This was an application for a rohearing of a case previously heard, and in winch judgment was given for plaintiff for the full amount, a payment on account having been made since the summons was issued. Mr Grave (H. B. Crawford) appeared for Davis, and Mr Leo (Hislop and Creagh) for M'Voy. Mr Grave asked that execution bo allowed to go forward for the amount actually owing, but to this Mr Leo objected for reasons which ho stated. The application was adjourned for a week. John Vernor v. Mrs Elizabeth Wilkio, claim L5 9s. Tha defendant was sued as the widow of tho late Donald Gunn, who had possessed herself of tho proporty loft by deceased, and in that respect was sued for amount claimed. Mr Grave said tho furnituro of tho doceased was insured bofore his death, and tho insuranco was continued by his widow till it was lately destroyed by firo. The first itoin in the account was enentered as obtained on October 3, 1887. Plaintiff said Mrs Wilkio had admitted tho dobt several times, and said she would pay it. Mrs Wilkio said sho nover had tho account before. Her lato hus* band died on tho 4th July, 1888. Sho nevor had any conversation with Mr Vernor as to tho account. The furuituio was her own property, as sho had L300 whon «ho was married. The furnituro sho first bought was in Queenstown, and that was sold, when they loft that place, but sho did not get any money from her Into husband. Sho paid debts as far as tho money he loft went, including a subscription raised. Sho took possession of her late husband's estato without will and without an order of Court. To Mr Loo th© defondank said she had got tho summons within the past month. Sho had not at any time within tho last two months had any proporty which had belonged to her late husband. To Mr Grave : Part of the furnituro destroyed by firo lately in Franco's block was at one timo tho proporty of Mr Gunn, her previous husband. Mr Wilkio got tho monoy, and gavo her nono of it. Sho considered it Mr WilWb as he was, hoy husband. To Mr Leo : The firo occurred in April last, and all hor proporty was in the house at tho time, and was all destroyed, and sho had no insuranco on it. Mr Loo moved for a non-suit on the ground that tho dofondant at tho dato of tho action had no property belonging to her deceased husband, Counsel quoted authorities in supuort of his plea. The estato had been fully exhausted, and plaintiff had ihorothorefore no claim. Mr Grave said, aq tho defendant had admitted that part of tho property destroyed by firo had been tho proporty of Gunn, sho was liablo for the amount olaimed. Tho caso was adjourned for a weok, as the estato had not bcon exhausted. CUrk Bros. v. Mrs A. J. Atkinson, claim L24 5s Gd. Mr Harvey appeared for plaintiffs and Mr Lee (Hislop and Creagh) for defendant. David Clark (one of the plantifla) said he saw Mra Atkinson at Weaton about some threshing, and she gave instructions for the work to be done. Hor son had nothing to do with the arrangement. To Mr Lee the witness sa^d when ho went to Cave Valley it was not by arrangement. Ho was looking for threshing contracts. Mrs Atkinson asked witness if he had geen her sou on tho rourl, but did riot give a reason for asking. Sl?e said h) was a pity her son was not Uioro, Sho aaid she would toko tho particulars as to price, etc., so as to give them to her son. Mr Atkinson saw ono of hia brothers about tho timo tho mill would come. Alox Clark said he kept the books of the firm, and had rendored the account to Mr Atkinson, as it was his usual custom to send acoounts to managers. Ho received a lotter from Mr Atkinson saying he found he was in financial difficulties. He immediately Baw Mr Atkinson, and told him that they never understood he had anything to do with payment, and that they looked to Mrs Atkinson. He said he had the place leased, £fe then got $0 bags of oata from Mr Atkinson at (is a bag. To Mr Loe : He had not brought his books in. Tho three acccounta produced were rendered to Mr E. Atkinson. After tho delivery of tho difterent accounts Mr Atkinson told him he was in difficulties, and thereafter he got 60 bags of oats from Mr Atkinson. To Mr Harvey witness said he understood Mr Atkinson was managing for his mothor. This closud tho plaintiff's case, and Mr Loe called Mrs A, J. Atkinson, who said thatj whon ono of tho Clark.

Bros, came to the house abou 1 : the threshing, she said her son hud gone to Oatnaru shortly liofore, and if ho would lot her know wh.it were his terms she would lot hor son know, and if he did not see him, he would writo to him (Clark). Sho pointed out to Mr Clark th«t her son had leased the place, and nhe had nothing to do with it. To Mr Harvey : Hor son had p^id p»rt of th.- rent, but sho hud lost ubout LC5OO in all She guamnteod her bou'h account at the bank. Thoro whs no agreement in writing about the lease. She sold her son's horBoa and plant for rent. There was no hill of baIo. There was yet his wheat and grass seed. A groat deal of the farm plant was her own. She was tho heaviest loser in the matter. She was particular in tolling Clark Bros, who was responsible. When the sale of oata took place Clark Bros. h»d to wait till hor son advisod hor whothar they could get them or not. K Atkinson said he had leased the farm from his mother for two yean, which expirod on 31st March lust. Ho saw Clark twico about tho threshing, and arranged for it with him. lie told Clark tho crop was his, and when tho accounts were sent in and he could not pay he oftered to give I hem some oats, and theso were accepted from him. Clark Biy»h. knew who they wero doing tht work for. To Mr Harvey : When ho went to soe Clark Bros, it whs in consequence of whnt his mother said about Clark calling at the house. Ho would not swear that his mothor did not say Clark Bros, wern coming to thresh. Ho had seon Alex. Clark months beforo on tho show ground about the threshing. His mother assisted him with money and guaranteed his account. Tho Magistrate said it was a question of the credibility of witnpsseH, und tho documents, put in by plaintiffs were against theirclaim, and thoy could accept a judgment for defendant or a nonsuit. Mr Harvey accepted a judgment for defendant, and costs of L2 15a against plaintiffs. W. and J. Russell v. J. Wilkio, claim L4 10a 3d. L2 12s 4d had boon piid into Court. Mr Harvey appeared for plain, tiffs and Mr Roll for defendant. The claim was in respect of 231bs beef at 3d per lb, 2 carcases of mutton at 69 each, iind a hoifer at L3 12s 6d. W. Rtnsoll 8ntd after defendant's fire he asked plaintifl to tako his sheep. He (plaintifl) took 12 and gave defendant back 14. Ho was to get the skins and fat for his trouUo. With regard to the hoifer, defendant H»id when the heifer was do* livorod he would pay the account. The heifer was delivered alive at the sale yard. To Mr Roll ; He sold tho heifer to Mr Wilkio at the salo yards, and the heifor was taken away by his (Itussoll's) slaughterman, who was also killing for defendant. Ilo had stopped his slaughterman killing for (Wilkio owing to his cutting tho prices. Tho sheop returned by Wilkio to him woro only fair sheop, and he hid to roturn ono as not saleablo. Tho value of tho sheep would be about 6s to 6s 6d. lho sheop ho gavo Wilkie woro very good sheop. The heifer died. Andrew VVilkie said the sheep that 1 Rudsoll returnod to Wilkio woro as good and fully better than those Wilkio had given Russell. To Mr Roll : He could not Ray that over ho said the sheep given to Wilkio by Russell were not lit for dogs' meat. With regard to tho hoifer, ho killed Russell's, but gavo Wilkio notice that ho could nob kill his under tho now arrangement. Wilkio told him at tho salo yards he had bought tho heifer from Russoll and to tako it down along with the othors. Tho heifer died in tho paddock. Wm. Bissot said the sheop given by Rusaell to Wilkio were better than those returned by Wilkio to Russell. John Aitohison also gavo evidence for plaintifla as to tho arraugemont made. Ho was in tho shop and heard it. This closed the case for the plaintiffs, and Mr Roll called James Wilkie, tho defendant, who said ho bought the larger heifor of tho two at the ealeyards. There waa no arrangement as to delivery, but he expected it to be killed and delivered to him at) his shop. This was the arrangement he always mado. His •laughterm«n was to do this. With rogard tc the sheep, his sheep wero good, and he was to get the skins, fry and fat back, tho same as he had al - lowed. The sheop he got bnck wero very inforior. He never got tho skins, fry, fat, otc, from Russell. Aitohcson did not hear th^ arrangement, To Mr l£ar> voy ; He had agreed to pay L4, but that was sooner than bother with it. His Worship said defondant was not, in Ins opinioti, entitled to attributo the affair to trade jealousy. Tho defendant in tho box had not been able to explain away tho evidenco regarding tho hoifer. Judgment was given for tho plaintiff for tho amounb chimed, leas L2 12s 4d paid into Court, and costs of L3 against defendant.