LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XII, Issue 4399, 18 December 1875, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. [Before E. C. R-lrstovr, Esq., R.M.) The ordinary weekly sitting of the Court for the determination of small debt claims was held to day, and the following business disposed of : — Judgment.—Palmer and Taylor v. Dillon. This case was heard last Court-day, when His Worship, having heard the evidence, reserved his decision. The claim was made for work and labour done under contract by the plaintiffs, who are plumbers. His Worship now gave judgment for £16 13s Sd. Undefended Cases.— J. J. Mills y. P. MeTavish, chiim £20 3s ud ; Holloway and Garlick v. Oldrey, £9 12s Sd; Galbraith v. Conn, £5 16s Cd ; J. Kelly v. J. Chapman, £9 7s 3d ; W. Britton, v. E. Ryan, £1 13s 4d; Fisher and Co. v. H. B. Stoney, £13 5s Id ; T. Holland v. ltichard Mitchell, £4 10s ; E. Porter and Co. v. David Lindsey, £17 lGs 3d; T. Wilson v. George Isaacs, £1 Ss ; J. S. Macfarlane and Co. v. Charles Burton, £29 10s ; J. P. Sauuders v. Joseph Rogers, £6 10s; J. J. Odium v. Robert Galaway, £1 9s; the same v. Timothy Doferty, £1. In the above cases judgment was given for the plaintiffs. Matson v. Miller. —Claim, £25. Mr. Brooktield for the plaintiff; Mr. Hesketh for the defendant. This was an action to recover for rent. It appeared that the ! plaintiff had purchased the interest in a ' property belonging to Alexander Cromwell, the present defendant being the occupier at the time of the sale, oue year of his lease being yet unexpired. The plaintiff was examined as to whether he gave sufficient notice to the defendant that he had become the owner of the property. It appeared that he mentioned the circumstance to the defendant in the street, but could not say the exact words he used. The defendant spoke of the same fact, but described the conversation in effect " that the plaintiff did tell him something about it." The defendant had a claim for bonedust against the previous owner, and he contended that he could set it off against the new owner, but no such claim was provided for in the deed of transfer. The defendant admitted there was rent due. The contention was whether the notice given to the defendant was sufficient to make him liable for costs. His Worship reserved judgment. Johnson v. Williamsom.—Claim £37. —Mr. Joy for the plaintiff, Mr. Hesketh for defendant. The amount claimed in this case was the sum which the plaintiff had to pay to cause the bailiff of the Court to relinquish possession, in execution of a judgment obtained by the defendant against certain stock in the Occidental HoteL The faots involve the relations of several persona to the establishment known as the Occidental Hotel, in Vnlcan Lane, and the matters in dispute will be best understood by their recapitulation. When Mr. Edward Perkins left Auckland Mr. Charles Burton, of the Army and Navy Hotel, became the ostensible proprietor, but the licence was in the n»« e of plaintiff, who is foreman to Mr. Har-"° c k, the brewer, and his name was on *^ e doorsill as.licencee, while Burton'* name was exhibited as proprietor on «>e wall of the building. lately it geared that Mr. Burton had fallen difficulties, and though he wae by both sides for the purpose of this inquiry, he could not be found by the bailiff Mr. Burton dealt -with the defendant for tobacco, cigars, &c., to whom a balajwe of an account was due. It being reported that Burton had told some persons that he would file his schedule, the defendant sent in his claim, which was not paid on demand, and he subsequently sued for the amonnt and obtained judgment, which was put in the hands of the baihff to

execnte, and the bailiff took possession xccordingly. The plaintiff Johnson was ia occupation, and said he had purchased from Burton for £142, and produced an absolute bul of sale from Burton to himself. The officer was put in possession on the /th of December (this month). The deed of sale was executed on the 3rd of December and on the 10th of December Burton published a declaration of insolvency. Johnson said he was not indebted to Williamson and the seizure was illegal, but he paid the claim under protest, and now brought his action for the expense he had been put to 1 he.form of the action put it on the plaintiff now to prove that the purchase from Burton was a bona fide transaction. Mr. S. E. Hughes was examined, and said that the plaintiff Johnson and Burton came to him, for the purpose of drawing up the necessary deed of transfer. He advised the matter to be effected by ail absolute bill of sale. He acted for both parties. The bill of sale was drawn up and signed by both parties, and was attested by the witness. Johnson then paid him £142 in notes, as the consideration money. The witness accompanied both the parties to the Occidental Hotel. He got a bottle of brandy or spirits from the barmaid, and with it, in the name of the rest of the stock, transferred the business from Burton to Johnson. Hβ told the barmaid she was to pay no more money to Burton, and not allow him to have any. Burton went away. In cross-examination, witness said that Burton did not give him to understand at that time that he would go through th* Bankruptcy Court, or that he was not able to meet his engagements. He believed Mr. Burton was in difficulties, but he was looking forward at that time to have the management of the hotel, and he would make arrangements with his creditors. Burton told him he would not go through the Bankruptcy Court, but would try to get his creditors something a-week. He claimed the privilege of a solicitor not to expose the affairs of his client. He handed the money to his clerk to be put to Burton's account. He paid the money away as directed by Burton. He was aware that Hancock had endorsed a bill for Burton. Johnson wag foreman to Air. Hancock. Air.. Jagger w&S Mr. Hancock's sou-in-law. It was, h* believed, his liability to Hancock that mad* Burton realise. After the execution of the deed,, he became aware of a dishonored bill. He did not know anything about Johnson, but he believed the sale was a bona fide transaction. The plantiff was examined, and said he bought the business from Burton, and paid for it. Burton owed him no money. There was no collusion between himself to secure any particular creditor at the expense of the rest. In cross-examination,. the witness said that the money was his own. Hβ admitted that he had been in Mr. Hancock's employment, and that he got some of the money (£5 or £C) from Mr. Jagger. Mr. Hancock was examined as to the nature of the ; liability from Burton to him. He had endorsed a bill for Burton. He had confidence in Mr. Burton, who always paid him-honorably. Counsel were heard on either side. Mr. Hesketh contended that the whole of this transaction, at the time when Burton was on the verge of bankruptcy, was extraordinary. Burton, having a large liability on account of this endorsement spoken of, —signing this deed and handing the business over to Mr. Hancock's foreman made the whole affair extremely suspicious. Then there was the fact that, almost immediately after the transfer, Barton declared his insolvency, and could not b* found to give evidence. This, he contended, gave the true colour to the transaction. Mr. Joy, in reoly, said it was not contradicted that Johnson paid for this stock-in-trade with his own money. It waa not alleged that Burton owed Johnson anything which j should give him an interest in any pre- ' ferential disposition of the property by Kurton. The fact of Hancock having employed Johnson for some time was in favour of the theory of the plaintiff's case that Johnson would have the means of his own, or that Mr. Hancock would help him to get into the house. Mr. Hancock swore that he never spoke to Johnson about taking the business, but Johnson did speak to him, and he asked Johnson how he could pay back any money that might be lent to him. So far as the plaintiff was concerned, everything was plain, and his evidence had not been contradicted. His Worship said he must take time to consider his judgment. Adjourned to next Court-day accordingly.