MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 15096, 12 September 1912, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

A DISPUTED CLAIM.

"CASE FOR THI-: POLICE.''

The attention of Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., was occupied at the Magistrates Court yesterday with the hearing of a. claim brought bv William Richard Webb against William Burlield for £18, representing- the balance of an amount alleged to bo duo for board and lodgings and money lent and interest. Mr. Coates appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Prendergast for the defendant.

It was slated by Mr. Coates that the defendant had boarded with the plaintiff and his wife, and had gone to other lodgings leaving the whole of his board -unpaid. Ho had also contracted a debt with the plaintiff for money lent. ■

For tho defence, Mr. Prendergast admitted that the liability for hoard and lodgings had been incurred, but contended that it had been paid. In connection with the alleged loan and accompanying interest, lie submitted that it was in reality money paid by tho plaintiff to the defendant for certain interest in a launch which the latter owned.

Both these arguments wore refuted by Mr. Coatcs, who produced books kept by tho plaintiff showing tho defendant's liability. With regard to the loan, witnesses we-ro called who testified to having been told by Burfield that he, had incurred a debt with the plaintiff.

Tho defendant stated that he had not made these statements, and that-, moreover, he had settled for his board and lodgings. In support of this latter contention, a witness was called who testified as to having been present on many occasions when the defendant had paid his board.

In giving his decision, the magistrate stated that the cvidenco was so contradictory that there was no doubt but that tho grossest perjury had been committed somewhore. It was just the sort o£ perjury that occurred in ho Court almost every day, but in this ease there was more than the usual amount. In hie opinion the case should bo submitted to the police for investigation, and counsel should afford all opportunities for such an investigation. Tho onus of proof that tho liability had been satisfied had been with tho defendant, and ho had brought no convincing evidence in that direction. Judgment would be given for tho plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs.

HOUSE-PAINTING SUB-CONTRACT.

A claim for £10, representing the balance of money duo in connection with a, sub-contract for painting a, house at I'emuera, was brought by Henry Bloxham, a painter and paperhanger, against. J. 11. Keat and Son, contractors. Mr. A. L. Denniston appeared for tho plaintiff, and Mr. J. B. Johnston for the defendants. The evidence showed that tho plaintiff had entered into a sub-contract -with the defendants, but that upon the completion of tho work ho had' received £10 less than had been stipulated. This sum the; defendants had not paid on the ground that the plaintiff had not carried out the terms of tho specifications. After evidence had been given by tho architect, who affirmed that ho was satisfied that the work had been properly carried out, His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs.

claim for Alleged loan. The alleged loan in September of last year of the sum of £55 resulted in a claim being brought by Te Aouru against Teahumoa Puhata for the recovery of the amount mentioned. . Mr. Prendergast appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. A. E. Skelton for the defendant. :

The evidence for tho plaintiff was to the '"effect that money had been lent in two instalments, ono of £5 and the other of £50. The latter sum had been drawn from the Savings Bank by tho plaintiff, and was .lent to the defendant tho same day that it was drawn. Tho. defendant had promised to satisfy the debt when certain moneys in connection with some land were forthcoming. For tho defence, Mr. Skelton stated that a positive denial was given that the money was ever borrowed. The plaintiff had, ho understood, been living a high life at the time the money was alleged to have been borrowed, and it was just possible that instead of being lent tho money had been lost or dissipated. After evidence had been given by tho plaintiff, .and a native who deposed that ho had been present when, the plaintiff had drawn tho money from tho bank on the date of tho alleged loan, the case was adjourned until Tuesday.