LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XIII, Issue 4693, 28 November 1876, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

-. ♦ DISTRICT COURT.—Monday. IBoforo F. D. Fen ton, Esq., District Judge. J The ordinary bi-weekly sitting of this Court was held this morning, and the following business disposed of :— Alexander Ddthie v. James Booth (Judgment).—Claim £100. His Honor delivered judgment in this case, which was heard last Court-day. The statement of the facts on either side involve a conflict of testimony, so absolute as to cause a painful feeling in reading over the evidence. The case for the plaintiff was, that one Simpson owed him £100, under an endorsement of an accommodation bill cashed by Mr. Swanson. Wfcen the hill became due, Simpson could not meet it, but the defendant (Booth) owed him £100 (more o- less), and Simpson proposed that he would give Booth a receipt for the money due, if Booth would pay Duthie. This was done, and the circumstances under which this arrangement was made were described with great minuteness. The scene occurred, as alleged by the plaintiff, in the parlour of the British Hotel, Queen-street. The defendant answered the action by swearing that he bad paid the money for which the receipt was given, and that there was no truth whatever in the detailed account of what took place in the British Hotel. His Honor felt bound to give judgment for the plaintiff, whose evidence appeared to the Court to be testimony of truthfulness. It was borne out by what was stated by Mr. Simpson, and it was difficult to suppose that two respectable men would conspire to impose upon a third person an obligation which he never consented to. As to the defendant, it was difficult to suppose that he could have forgotten what took place upon the obtaining that receipt from Simpson, or that there could have been any doubt as to the intention with which it was given, or the object it was to secure. Judgdent for the plaintiff for the full amount. Mr. Hesketh said there was no doubt that Mr. Swanson had been paid the amount of the bill by Mr. Duthie. His Honor: Mr. Duthie mado a most favourable impression upon the Court. The opinion suggested by that impression was that he was an honorable and fair dealing man. Nathan and Co. v. Wakeham.—Mr. Meyer for plaintiff. Claim £32 14s 10d. This was an action to recover the amount due upon a promissory note. The note was proved in the ordinary form, and judgment passed tor the plaintiff. E. G. Smith t. R. B. Vance. —Claim, £13 10s Id. This was an action to recover the balance payable of a promissory note for £25. The claim was not opposed, and being proved in the ordinary form, judgment was passed for the plaintiff. Peachey v. Lewis Brothers. —Mr. Kissling for the plaintiff, Mr. E. Meyer for the defendants. This was an application for a new trial. The action was brought m the first instance by Lewis Brothers against Peachey, to recover £42 ISs 4d, for goods sold and delivered. The answer to the action was that the goods were received by the plaintiff to trade with along the Coast, upon the conditions of sale or return, and a set-off for various services rendered. In one item, the defendant claimed to be allowed £20 for goods returned, and a further

sum for -weighing a quantity of maize. Since the trial, Peachey had discovered that a mariner named Smith, of the Saucy Lass, from Timarn, could give important evidence as,tothe return of the goods referred to, and hence asked for a new trial. Mr. Meyer contended that the mere discovery of evidence which had not been .brought before the Court at the'trial, was not sufficient ground for a new trial. Affidavits were handed in in[ Bupport of; the application, and further evidence upon : affidavit upon the plaintiffs' cafee. His Honor , said he would grant a new trial upon the item of £20. Mr. Meyer hoped the Court would grant a new trial upon the whole action, to be tried by • a jnry; and, further, that Peachey, the defendant in the first trial, be ordered to pay the amount of the judgment into Court. A new trial granted, and order made accordingly.