MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10305, 12 March 1895, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

• : •• Monday, SJa\icii 11. I (Before Mr E. 11. Ciirew,'S.M)\. Tho Drapery and General Importing Company iv. Hall.—ln this previously heard case, in which Mr James appeared for the plaintiff company m,& Mr Hodgkins for the defendant, his Worahio aave judgment for the defendant, with costs o£2 17s). The Bank of New South Wales v. Isaac—ln this caje, which was heard recently, and in which K r R- ,Vhal>mall ai'Pßared for the plaintiff and Mr Woodhouse for the dtfendant, hia Worthip gave judgment us follows :—' The evidence shows that at the time Mrs Isaac executed the licmd under which the claim is Urought Sue had no separate ; estate except, income under restraint from anticipation, and arrears of that income in the hands of hoi- triutets. At tliis time hax account witluho trustees was £177 on the, debjt §lac,' but it hjw since been ilhov/n that thd account. should have been credited \vith sums amoilutiufj to about i!2§o, so that the trustees owed her about £103., Une of the questions in this case is whether the restraints in anticipation attached to the.money then due to Mrs Isaac as income by the trustees, because if it did Mra Isaac then had

no free estate, and therefore no contractual capacity. My attention was called to the cases of Hood Bairn v. Cathcart (in the December number of the Keports) and Pillers and l'erahouse v. Edwards (Court of Appeal, December 18!'J> This latter case was an appeal from the Divisional Court, wm U u L".- '. iecided that th? restraint la anticipation attached to overdue rouv. and thereforu refused to appoint a leceivUr to collect it to satisfy a judgment. A full report of the ciso is Hot to hand, bul iLia reported that the i'PPeal was dismissed. Id a mite of t!i« case in the Law Notch of January ls»9<p»ge 9), If. is stated that the Court of Appeal wuhud to ckcidfe that tlie restraint ceased as so'ou as the income became due, but aftet- due consideration of all tHe authorities rtluetantly decided that the restraint lasted till the income was actually received b,y the married won an. In the case' of Hood Bans v. Cathcart (December number of the ' Reports ') the. court held that it had no jurisdiction to order payment out of separate income, which', at the dato of tho i judgment, she is restrained from anticipating, although such income may be in arrear,' or pa her hands, when execution ia sought to be levied .against:her- « stems from these authorities that tile law is now recognised to be that the restraint in anticipation attaches to. oVef due income; not received by the married woman. If that be so, Mrs Isaac had no free estate that she could bond at the time that she executed the deed. Judgment for defendant, with costs £917s 9d." Frederick Smith v. Qeorgo Mullin.-Claiin £8 us 3d, on a judgment summons.—Mr Barclay appeared for the plaintiff.—There was no appearance of the defendant, and an' order was made for the payment of the amount claimed, with costs, by. monthly instalments, in default 10 days' imprisonment. A. Lorie and Co v. Thomas Walter Cotton.— Claim £7 9a 9d, on a j'udgnietit euitimons.—Mr Sim appeared for the plaintiffs.—After evidence had been given by the defendant, his Worship refused to make an order, as it had not been shown that defendant had the means to satisfy the judgment. Joseph Kskdnle and John Moloney (executors of the will of the late Wm. Secular) v. Rebecca Smith (Orjhir).—Claim £31 7s, on two dishonoured promissory.uptes.—Mr Sinclair appeared for the plaintiffs, for whom judgment was givSa for the amount claimed, with costs, in the absence of tho defendant. ■ * James Stewart Cockerton v. Samuel James Jackman (Wellington).—Claim £22 4s 7d.—ln this cate the plaint note set forth that on October 27,1893, the defendant owed the plaintiff £102, being the principal and interest due under a memorandum of mortgage. On the same date the plaintiff in exercise of the said memorandum of mortgage sold certain land for £120, and the expenses occasioned by such sale amounted to £40 4s-7d, including £31 4s for Messrs Fitchett and Thornton's costs. The defendant was Btill indebted to the plaintiff for the sum of £22 4s 7d, being the above-mentioned sum of £102, together with the £4'i 4s 7d expenses, less £120, the price of the land.—Mr Thornton appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Calvert for the defendant.—Learned counsel for the defendant raised the nonsuit point that there was no evidence befora the court that the work included in the bills of costs had ever been done; or that the expenses were fair and reasonable expenses:—His Worship nonßuited the plaintiff on this point. . : Basil Sievwright and William Smith v. Louisa and Charles William Hawkins.—Claim £18 Us 5<J, for lent and rates of a shop in. the Royal Arcade.—Mr James appeared for theplaintiffs and Mr Wilkinson for the defendants, who paid £4 4s 10d into court.—After evidence, judgment was given for the plaintiffs for the amount claimed, with costs £2 16s, less'the amount paid into couit. Mary Brown v. Donald Cameron Cumming and William Whamond Euke (executors of the will of Betsy Ann Nicol Ferguson Maceldowie. late of Dunedin, widow, deceased).—Claim £2218 i, being the balance alleged to be due to the plaintiff by defendants, a^ executors of the Baid will, for Bervices rendered by her to the deceased for nursing, and for bedding destroyed and bandages and dressings supplied. —Mr i'raser appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Wilkioson for the defendants..—After evidence, plaintiff was nonßuited, with' costs £2 2s.