SMALL DEBTS COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume II, Issue 554, 22 August 1865, Page 6

SMALL DEBTS COURT.

(Before Thomas Beckham, Esq., There were several civil rases heard. KCL WIKI V. MORGAN. Claim, £'31. Mr. Wyun appeared for the plaintiff : Ji r g Cold was for defendant. r ""' s ' The plaintiff agreed with the defendant to-i-'-. boat, of which the price, when linishtd, £92, and the £31 which constituted the d'ea C-tse was given to the defendant as a dep-< : ;-~' J plaintiff did not appear when the bo-it was him, and tho defendant, Morgan, told it to person for £91. He refused to return the £&*£* he considered forfeit. " It was proved that the plaintiff had £92, and also that Morgan was willing to another boat for plaintiff, which offer JT 1 ' Henry Morgan, examined by Mr. M\ nr ~ defendant in this action, ihe document "i a c 5-"? an agreement between myself and the coup I received £31 from the complainant. I the boat for £91 to another, she is worth have not got more than tue boat Tho £31 was given a- a deposit. The dtp f-jZ the plaintiff was given in respect to this b it'j," :7 I consider forfeit ' "*

Win. iirabius, deposed: lam a boat [ have seen this agreement before. I was pres-.ir tr'-c it was entered into. I know ttie plaintiff Sgi \yTij" whom they call " Jim Crow." I explained the ment to him, and asked him whether he i-;r:-.v understood it. Tne plaintiff said he pc-rfo'tlV nzd-r. stood it, aud that he would go to the Xonh shot* and fetch the money. If he did not come '<* fourteen days Mr. Morgan was to keep t;e a r.-7 The plaintilF speaks English. I have never L-. : ; 'j native speak better English. Ilenry Morgan cross-examined by Mr. BrooiSeii: I have li id other transaction! with Ng* Wiki 0:: dealings were transacted in i-.nnlish. Iso d the boac seven or eight days after the money fell d->?. N'ga Wiki had never offered me the balance. It hsnever been offered to me up to this moment. Cross-examined by Mr. Wytm: If I succeed h this action 1 will not have had £30 more thjj the value of the boat. I consider this money was a j?. posit, and the plaintiff' not having fulfilled the aj-ee-ment, that the money is forfeit. By the : The price of the bwt wai £«. The £»l was given as a forfeit. If I hwta-;£3l I wiU have £30 more than was agreed upia. The boat was completed, but we are supp jrcd to hun.h the bo it. We -do not launch a bos; until we ae o dered We -expect patuient before wekuiciita

boat. We are not supposed to launch a los: j! own ri-k.

Re-examined by Mr. Brookfieid: I ofFsrei tii p ainiiff to build him a bo.it of the s.tme eld:-, if :hs p aintilF would tllow the £31 to go to that wcoss. That otf-r was refused.

Mr. Maxw«:l, Native Interpreter, deposed tEi:;; knew the plaintiff Had some convers.ttion with Mr Morgan in respect to this claim maie by i'gi «x

By Mr. Wi 1111: I saw Xga Wiki tender piyir;nt u Mr. Morgan. iN'ga Wi-.i brought 150 sov-rrcig:i«, i; money in a bag. and snook it betore ilorg»n. whj declined to receive it. The defendant did n..t -ej the money nor was it counted over to him, beciis he said he would not have it.

ilis NVor.-hip said the case was clear enough. Tit: defendant hud had £30 more th;tr. lie wa-> entitled to. I'hn judgment of the Court must be for £>0. Ii« native mu-t have a very strange notion of the couss of jus ice, could it be otherwise. Judgment or the plaintiff fur £'30. XOLiX V. HOLD3HII'. Claim £16 15s. 9d. In this case the claim was admitted to the extent of £1-5, audit had been paid into Uourt. The contention was, whether the money had been paid into Court in sufficient time, to save cjsts to the defendant. The defendant said the only reason why payment was delayed, was, because the original account was incorrect. His Worship observed, that when money was psil into Court, notice should bi given to the otherpat-X Judgment must be for the plaintiff for the lull amount, with the cost of the first day's proceeding. WHISKEK V. DEMI'SEY. C'aim £6. This was an action for work and labor done. It was contended that the defendant was in partnership. Tin claintiff was examined, and depo<ed that he was engaged by the defendant, but didnotkno* that he (defendant) was in partnership with another person, although he had subsequently been inforaei that such was the case. Judgment for plaintiff. JACOB V. WOODCOCK. Mr. Weston appeared for the defendant. Henry Moss Jacob said he was a storekeeperia Queen-street. Supplied the articles to the detenaaut's late husband. Ihe question was as to whether defend l WJ! liable as having administered to, and become possess d of tlie estate of her husband. His Worship suggested that the case should stwa over until Thursday next, plaintiff to pay defines' s costs of coming from Otahuhu. KING V. WIL-ON". Claim £S lis. Judgment confessed for £6 155., which *- 13 Sl " cepted. BVKSELL V. GRACE. This was a contention as to costs, s.ni was adjourned to Thursday. COYLE V. WKIGHT. Claim £1 I.is. Plaintiff deposed that lie had leut the ilcfenaiEtlie above amount in Februarv la^t. Mi* Wwiu srtiil that he believed the defendant under the iinpixvsion that the case was aJK'Urne.t to I'hur-day next. He wis not present. He app' that the money should be paid into C-'urt—■ i f; hearing to be taken upon the production ot aEJ lut as to the fact.