DISTRICT COURT.—Monday.

New Zealand Herald, Volume II, Issue 1127, 25 June 1867, Page 6

DISTRICT COURT.— Monday.

(Before His Honor Judge Beckham.) The usual fortnightly sitting of the District Court, was lield yesterday, when the following business was disposed of: — JUDGMENTS FOR PLAINTIFFS. In tho following cases judgment was given by default: Morrin v. Owen, £22 17s ; costs £495. Mr. Weston appeared for tlie plaintiff. Cruicksliank and Co. v. Christie, claim £70 os lOd; costs £7 los. Mr. Hcsketh appeared for tho plaintiffs. JUDGMENTS CONFESSED. Buckland v. Sadgrove, claim £60 2s lOd ; Mr. Whitakcr for plaintiff; defendant confessed judgment for £20 3s 4d, which was accepted. Quartier (sequestrator) v, Folej', claim £77 4s 4d. Mr. Wynn appeared for defendant, and confessed judgment upon terms preriously arranged between the parties ; Hunter v. Dunnctt, claim £34,. Mr. J. B. Eussell for plaintiff; Mr. Macdonald for defendant; Thomas v. Simpson, £100. j Defended Cases. j MULLIGAN- V. "WESTON. j Claim £100 damages. Messrs. Whitakcr and Wynn for the plaintiff ; Mr. Gillies for the defendant. This case was adjourned by consent until Friday next, the special jury who had been engaged being discharged, until that day at 10 o'clock. BRYAN V BUCKLAND. Claim £65, for cattle supplied. Mr. Wynn for the plaintiff; Mr. Whitaker for the defendant. In this case the plaintiff had sold and delivered to the defendant, 13 head of cattle for the sum of £65, agreeing to take 100 acres of land in exchange, at £1 per acre, and paying the balance of £35 ; 6 head of the cattle belonged to plaintiff's brother-in-law, but plaintiff alleged that he had paid his brother-in-law for them previously to the sale. When plaintiff applied to the defendant for the money, the latter said it was a family master and it was all settled. Plaintiff had given defendant a bill {of sale for £20 upon two head of cattle and ahorse, Tho plaintiff deposed that he had never agreed to repay the £'20; did not know what a bill of sale was ; Mr. Buckland was simply to retain the cattle and horse as a " stake." Mr. Wynn took a nonsuit. WILLIAMSON V. CLARKSON. Claim £100 for detinue. Mr. G-illies for plaintiff': Mr. Wynn for the defendant. This was a claim arising out of a contract made between the Provincial Government on the one part, and a person named Peter Stewart on the other, for the construction of the Mangawai breakwater. There was a clause in the terms of the contract reserving to his Honor the Superintendent the right to cancel the contract at any time, if the progress of the work was considered unsatisfactory, and in the event of the eontraet being cancelled or terminated all machinery used in carrying it on was to become the property of the Government. It appeared that the contractor had been served with a notice cancelling the contract, and had disposed of the tools, &c., to the present defendant. Peter Stewart deposed that he had received a letter cancelling the contract. Had handed the letter over to the present defendant (copy produced.) This is a true copy. Mr. Wynn objected to secondary evidence, as no notice to produce had been served. Mr. Gillies argued that secondary evidence was admissible in the present case, and that notice to produce was not necessary. His Honor ruled that the secondary evidence was not admissible. Mr. Gillies applied under the 76th clause for an adjournment, in order to enable the plaintiff to serve notice to produce upon the defendant. Mr. Wynn argued that the clause alluded to applied merely to eases in which questions of practice of the Court were concerned. His Honor said the case could only be adjourned with costs. Mr. Gillies then called D. K. Clarkson, who deposed that he had not received the letter alluded to from the plaintiff. Believed it was not in his (defendaatV) possession. Had himself delivered the letter to Mr. Stewart, and knew it was the same by what ho had been told subsequently. Peter Stewart, recalled, deposed that the letter was not in his possession, and that he had no knowledge of its whereabouts. Mr. Gillies contended that ho had now shown sufficient grounds for the admission of secondary evidence. Mr. Wynn having replied, His Honor said the Court hod no power to admit secondary evidence as the matter now stood, and the case was ultimately adjourned until next Court day, the costs to abide the issue. FERGUSON V. MCKENZIE AND VERNON. Claim £100, for trover. Mr. Gillies and Mr. MacCormick for the plaintiff; Mr. Brookfield for the defendant. This was a claim for the value of timber entrusted to the defendant as master of the Kate, and while in his possession seized by Mr. Vernon; and also for damages alleged to have been sustained through the seizure. The defence was that the timber had not been so seized as alleged, that it was not tho plaintiff's property, and that it was seized under writ of ji.fa. issued by the Supreme Court. John Ferguson deposed that about the oth of May last lie delivered a cargo of timber to the defendant at Orewa near Wangapoa. Had received a receipt (receipt produced.) The timber was to be delivered to plaintiff's agent in Auckland. Saw defendant in town on the arrival of the Kate, and directed him to deliver the timber to nobody but himself (plaintiff.) Saw defendant again and repeated the order, when he said he would do as lie was directed by Mr. Vernon and would not deliver the timber to the plaintiff. McKenzie said Vernon claimed it for the Bank of Auckland. Gave a notice to plaintiff (notice produced) holding him responsible for any loss or damage that might arise through the non-delivery of the timber to Phillips'agent. Saw Mr. Vernon on the 9th of May and also on the 20th when he said he claimed it for the Bank of Auckland under a bill of sale. Vernon said lie had sold it to Goldie receiving £30 cash and a promissory note for the balance. The timber in question had been cut by plaintiff and his brother, who had a lien upon it, the owners subject to the lien being Preece and Viekery who had authorised, the sale of the timber in order topay off all claims; (written authorityproduced) valued the timber at £45. Witness's trade had been depreciated by tho seizure to the amount of £50. j Cross-examined: Could not swear whether or not Vernon was in legal possession of the I timber prior to loading it, believed he was not Angus McLeod examined by Mr. MacCormick gave corroborative testimony. Sullivan, clerk at the mills, deposed that McKenzie had guen a receipt for the timber (receipt produced.) Cross-examined: The sheriff's officer had been there since April, but not in possession of the timber. . This was the plaintiff's case. The Court adjourned for half an hour. On the Court re-assembling, Mr. Brookfield called Mr. Vernon, who deposed that he took possession and sold the cargo of timber under a writ o{fi,fa. Mr. Brookfield produced the judgment roll in a case heard at the Supreme Court on the sth of April, between C. Arthur and E. Arthur, against W. Viekery. Mr. Gillies objected to the reception of the documents, on the ground that they were no evidence of . a judgment. : They did not bear

the seal of tho Supreme Court as the writ did, they merely bore tlio signature of the Bcgistrar. There was a regular form of judgment in the Supreme Court, but the documents produced were altogether different, and merely proved that a judgment had been signed. Mr. Brookfield contended that that was tho judgment prescribed by the Act. After some discussion the documents wore received. Henry Vernon, re-examined: I seized the furniture of Mr. William Viekery at his houso in Albert-street, and some timber at the Orewa Mill, under a writ for £187. Tho mill was seized under two bills of sale. Seized the timber on board the Kate in consequence of information received from my agent. Told Ferguson under what process I seized the timber, and that tho proper course for him to adopt was to serve a notice upon the sheriff. Saw him subsequently, and offered to allow him fourteen days to enable him to put in an interpleader. Ferguson said he had sold the timber to Mr. Goldie, at Gs per 100. I said I would let Goldie have the timber provided the money were allowed to remain in my hands subject to the interpleader. Paid the freight out of the sum realized. I seized the timber on board the Kate, because it was a portion of that seized at tho mill. Cross-examined : I only know of the seizure of the timber at the mill from communications received. I sent down a man named Harnett to seize the timber under the writ oifi.fa., which he now has, as also the bills of sale. Mr. Gillies addressed the Court at considerable length, contending that special damages should be awarded against Mr. Vernon, and in the second ease nominal damages against the defendant McKenzie. His Honor said the Court was of opinion that it had not been shown that the timber was the property of Viekery, the evidence rather tended to prove that the timber was the property of the plaintiff's who had a lien upon it. They had Mr. Vernon's own statement that the timber was only delivered to him on agreeing to pay the freight. Judgment must of course pass for plaintiff. His Honor awarded nominal damages and costs, £13 6s, against the defendant McKenzie, and .£55 and costs, £5 9s, against 11. Vernon. KELLY V. BARTLETT. Claim £59 7s 6d. Mr. Gillies instructed by Mr. J. Eussell for the plaintiff; Mr. Wynn instructed by Mr. Hill, jun., for the defendant. Plaintiff deposed that he had been applied to by Mr. George on belialt of Mr. Bartlett for a loan of £50. Mr. George produced a mortgage deed and other documents, which witness left in his possession being satisfied with tho investment. Mr George was not witness's agent except in business of this kind. Cross-examined : I did not hold Mr. George personally responsible. Charles S. George deposed, that he was the son of Mr. George the solicitor above referred to, was present in January, 1866, when the defendant signed a deed. The deed was end orsed " G.E. Bartlett to John Kelly—mortgage," had searched for the deed, but could not discover its whereabouts. Wrote the deed himself; it was a mortgage securing £50 to Mr. Bartlett at 15 per cent. Saw the deed signed and either himself or his father was the attesting witness to the signature. Eeeeived interest, quarterly, from Bartlett, gave receipts regularly. Mr. Gillies called upon the other side to produce the receipts. After some discussion the notice to produce was admitted, but the receipts in question were with eld. The witness was re-examined, as to the contents of the receipts. Cross-examined : Kelly's name was mentioned twice in the receipts. There were six receipts. Mr. Wynn : How could there be six quarterly receipts when you have told us that the mortgage was for six months ? There could only be two receipts. Cross-examination continued: The deed was not registered. I think I gave some other deeds connected with this transaction, and which had been left in my father's possession, to Mr. Kelly, but I could not tell what kind of deeds they were. This was the plaintiff's case. G. B. Bartlett, tho defendant, deposed, I purchased some small lots from Mr. James Dry. The conveyance deeds were left in Mr. Geo.rge's possession to be registered. I have the Crown Grant, but not-the conveyance, and cannot tell what became of it. I never executed any morfcgageof the property or signed any deed in respect to it. Cross-examined: I signed the conveyance deed in Mr. George's office. I suppose it was the con. veyanee from Mr. Dry. I believed it to be such when I signed it. I remember paying four quarters' interest to Mr. George upon £50 which I had borrowed from him. I did not give the receipts to Mr. Hill. I lost the run of them. I showed one of them to Mr. Hill. I gave it to him. I have not got it. I believe my solicitor lias. Mr. Gillies : Now will you produce the receipts ? Mr. Wynn : Certainly (receipts produced). Cross-examination continued : I repaid tho money on the 3rd Nov., 180 G. Ee-examined: I signed no other document but the one now produced. (Conveyance deed produced.) Henry Coffey deposed that about the 3rd 1 Nov. he was in Mr. George's office with the defendant. Signed a conveyance deed from defendant to himself. (Conveyance deed produced). Saw Mr. Bartlett pay Mr. George £50. CroEs-examiued : He got the money from me. Mr. Gillies said there was no help for it; it was another case in which Mr. George had cheated somebody, and as the deed had not been registered the only course open to him was to accept a nonsuit. Cases Adjourned. The following cases were adjourned : Thomas v. Hooper, £2i 19s; Smi'h v. Harris, £70 5s lOd; llobinson v. White; Costelle v. Gibbons, £4S; Johnson v. Downes, £26 7s 6d ; Williamson v. Clarkson, £100 ; Thompson and Co. v. Lewis, £31 ls4d; Gilberd and another v. Tennant, £28 los lid ; Short v. Dunnet and Hunter, £40 ; Mulligan v. Weston, £100; Varty v. Vialou, £S1 4s Od; Fugate, Hawthorn and another v. Salmon, £100. Ihe Court adjourned until Tuesday (this day).