DEFENDED CASES.

Ohinemuri Gazette, Volume XXIX, Issue 3943, 12 July 1918, Page 2

DEFENDED CASES.

SOLDIER'S INTERESTS GUARDED,

At the Magistrate's Court on Wednesday, before Mr E. D. Mosley, the case of W. Denton v. S. Robsoh was heard. This was a case in which plaintiff claimed from the defendant the sum of £58, being balance 1 alleged to be due under a share-milking contract. Mr Clendon appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Moresby for the defendant. When the case was called on some months ago the plaintiff was successful in having Margaret R'-bson joined as defendant. The case proceeded another step, and on Wednesday an interlocutory application was filed by the defence and argued at length. The application set out that the evidence of D. W. Robson, now on active service, was of vital importance to the case, and he had made the arrangements with the plaintiff

Mr Moresby said that they had opposed the previous application to have Margaret Robson joined as defendant as she had absolutely nothing to do with the stock, and place D. W. Robson, the owner, as defendant. Invoices of stock purchased for the past four years were put in to prove that the cattle bought for the farm during that time were purchased in the name of Robson Bros., which was D. W. Robson trading under that name. The plaintiff admitted at the Court last hearing that he was employed by D. W. Robson. There was no agreement in writing, but the terms of 45 per cent, of the monthly milk cheque and one-third of the calve-^was the basis of the contract. The plaintiff had signed receipts each month in full settlement, and it was not until D. W. Robson had gone away on active service that the claim was made. Mr Moresby claimed that the interest of a soldier away at the front fighting for his King and country should be protected by the Court, and claimed protection, as he (D. W. Robson) was a vital witness in the case—in fact, the real defendant.

The Magistrate: If you can prove that D. W. Robson is the defendant, then the case must fail.

Mr Clendon : Yes, we are quite satisfied to be non-suited if the other side can prove that.

•Mr Moresby, continuing, said that D. W. Robson left in June, 1917, and in May prior assigned all his interest in his shares to his brother, S. Robson. This was necessary to Comply with the rules of the Thames Valley Dairying Co. An affidavit was put in from Margaret Robson, which set out that D. W. Robson was the owner of the stock.

Mr Clendon strenuously contested the interlocutory application, and submitted that the presence of D. W. Robson was not necessary. The real object, he' contended, was to delay the cause of justice, as he contended the evidence of D. W. Robson would not help the case. They were not suing the.Robson family for breach of contract,, but would say that S. Robson received from the Thames Valley Dairying Company certain moneys that should have been paid over to plaintiff. The terms of the agreement were common grounds, and only quite' recently S. Robson had paid over one-third of the money for calves sold on behalf of D. W. Robson, showing that he knew the arrangement. He contended that the defendant had not shown that the presence of D. W. Robson was necessary, and put before the Court the monthly accounts of settlement which were made out in the name of Margaret Robson.

The Magistrate, after hearing the arguments of counsel,, said he considered that the evidence of D. W. tlobson was most material. He also knew that it might be one or two years or longer before D. W. Robson returned, and he would like the defendant to agree to lodge the sum of £50, or give a satisfactory bond to the plaintiffs solicitor for that sum.

This was agreed upon by the solicitors, and the case was adjourned sine die.