MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15540, 23 August 1912, Page 8

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thursday, AunrsT 22. (Before Mr 11. Y. Widdowson, S.M.) Judgment was given for plaintills in the following undolunded cases. —U, Jauiiison and Co. v. Jolm Wilson M'Donald (tUnliirly), claim £23 2s 3d, balance for goods, with costs (£2 14s); Johnston, Sons, and Co. v. Ucorge .Mason, jun. (Uwaka Valley), claim £2 2s, balance lor books, with costs (13s); same v. Keginidd Iv-ui Weston (Wellington), claim £2 12s 6d, for books, with costs (10s); George T. K. Miuuizic v. " illiain \vhitelield (Tupanui), claim £1 17s 6d, for tea, with costs (ss); J. Ilraithwiiite v. Henry J. Hcaks (llavclock), claim 19s lid. on an oMujitt staled, with coeU (5o); Wright, Stephenson, and Co. v. F. n iilLsgoit (OlakouJ, claim £8, balanco for goods, with costs (£1 6s 6d); Uohort Hart v. I*rank Townsend (Kuikorai Volley), claim £1 7s 6d, for boots, with costs (ss); Guthrie, liowron, uikl Co. v. ]•', 1,. Keys (Wellington), claim £2 17s 4d, balanoo for goods, Willi costs (10s); Samuel .Jarvis v. A. lietts (Invcrcargill), claim £3 10s. balance for clothes, with coslh (10s); Todd and Drown v. John Keen (Cuvcrshnni), claim £3 10s, j balance for clot his, with posts (lis). I Adams Bros, v, Joseph Powell (Port [ Chalmers).—Cluim £4 9s Bd, for costs and ; moneys paid.—Defendant counter-claimed I for £2 2s for advieo in connection with j laying out a ground.—Mr Payne appeared : for plnintifls, and stated that' the original sum elated hud been con-iderably reduced, It was only when defendant was pressed I for payment that he rawed tho question |of n coiuttor claim. Mr Adams asserted ! that he did not owe this man anything.— j Evidence was given by A. S. Adams and | defendant.—His Worsliip said that plainj tills' chargo was a reasonable one for going ! to Palineiston to conduct a case, and gave ; judgment for plaintiffs, with costs (275). i Commercial Agency Company v. Albert ! A. Cowan (Lytlelton).—Claim £22 12s 4d, ] for goods, etc.- — Mr JJaron appeared for : plaintiff and Mr lienion for defendant.— I After argument and ovidonco his Worship I reserved judgment. j Jolui Weavew v. John Popbam.—l'lain--1 tilt claimed £34 2s as the endorsee of a | pronii.-wiry note dated Juno 17, 1910, mado I by defendant and payable three months i alter dato to Win. .Miller or oider and en- : dorsed to. plaintiff, mid which defendant had not paid. Plaintiff further claimed £6 Is 2d for tho balanco of interest duo at the rate of 10 pur cent, down !<> the dato , of judgment, !)s 6d having been already ! |Mid. Plaintiff thcrefori' claimed n total ; sum of £40 Ss 3d.—Mr W. C. Macllrcgor appeared for plaintiff and .Mr J. 11. Callan

j tor defendant.—l'laintilf ttati'd in eviiicncu ! thut ho (liscountod a protniitory noto for i £34s 2s for Miller, liit» note having been j made by Popham. After Miller's di.sip* ; prarance he lonttil tlutt rophitni. was stay- ; ing at Tatl-ersiU's Hotel, and he went to ; see him mid had a conveitsition with liiin. : Stibseipicutly, in the street, Popliam gavo ! him (plaintilf) fls 6d, and si id that the bill 1 luul been given for accommodation purj |Hises only. PlaintilF staled further that : j defendant luid paid him the 9s 6d on aci; count, and hud informed him that £5 of ; j tho bill was really dtio b.v him to Miller.— ■ ; Kvidence was also given by Charles I'hans, , j formerly bof>kkec|>er to Miller.—Uefciidant ! I il(']K)3Pii that ho did not remember seeing r | Weavers until he culled on hint at tho i | hotel. Weavers asked witness what ho t | thought of the bill, and witne.ss replied, [ i " That is no good to mo. That is not my | signature. If it is I don't know it." I : Weavers said, «' Well,- I intend to have a s | go at you," and witness replied " You can ) please yourself aliout that, Mr Weavers." , Weavers 6,' i.id he would sco witness next f ! day, and when witness saw him again lie , ; said that Miller hud taken him down for r £1500 or £1700. lie naid Miller had left n- him with a sick wifo and no money. He s ' said he liml not a hoot to his foot, ami e • witness replied that lie was sorry ami thai a ; he would give Weavers 12s 6d to buy a s pair of new Ixiots. Weavers i>aid he would :l , give witness a receipt for tho money, but I witness «i(l a receipt was unnecessary. | lie did not see Weavcra again, but later he i) ' saw Mr Scurr. The promissory noto was :- introduced in conversation, and witness e said that if that was the promi.-ivirv note Mr Weavers had shown him about 18 e months previously it did not hear his sigd nature. Scurr said Weavers was entitled to sue him (witness) on tho bill, and witness said,".Very well, Mr Scurr." lie (witness) was not in Duuedin on the date tho bill linrtv-To Mr MacGrogor: lie had : hud dealilign with Miller for about seven j j years, lie had lent money to Miller and ' Miller had lent moiny to him. lie got no | bilki from Miller, but Miller got alwut two !! . bills from him.-Kvidcnco was also given ' j by JnnKH Olive, acting proprietor of Tattersall's Hotel, as to when defendant had lp been staying at his lfotcl.- Mr_ (Julian rai-rd i( j! the |>oint as to whether the bill wan admis- „ ! ibln iu evidence, Tho slump on it born Mhe cancellation "-T. W.. 17 6/10." and Mi J, t Weavers had admitted that he had placed j,. i that, upon the bill when he got it. II" ! had said he had not got the bill until ' a weol: or so after il wa.s Hated, and consc- ' { ((iientiy the date that defendant had written j upon the stamp was not the true date ol :,|. its this -tagc the cu=e wa: -it i adjourned to next Tue.--day. Nt i