R.M. COURT.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XVI, Issue 5573, 19 September 1889, Page 3

R.M. COURT.

[Before J. Booth, Esq., R.M.] J. Bourko v. J. T. Bannister claim LI 17s 4d for rates. Judgment by default ; costs, 7s. _ Thomas Moody v. John Macintosh. claim L 2 l»s. Judgment by default: costs, (is. . (i. K. Moore v. J. Crosswell, chum L 2 2s. Adjourned for a week. J. Bourke v. J. R. Scott, claim L 39, Harbor Board v. J. R. Scott, claim L 22 ; adjourned for three weeks. Graham, Pitt, and Bennett v. Archibald McMillan, claim L 53 13s 4d on dishonored l'.N.'s. Judgment by default; costs, L 2, solicitor's fee L 3 3s. (Jisborne Gas Company v. Willoughby Brassey, claim LlO. Mr Day asked for an adjournmtnt, as defendant had been detained at Napier owing to his child being ill. Mr Chrisp, for the Gas Company™ stated there could be possibly no defence. The adjournment was granted. Hatton and Score v. J. R. Scott and Co., claim Ll7 14s fid on a dishonored p.n. Judgment by default. W. Morgan v. Hugh Binnie, claim L 4 7s 6tl on a speedy summons. Judgment by default ; costs, os. Harbor Board v. J. S. Lincoln, claim L 2 12s 8d on a judgment summons. Order made for immediate payment, execution to be stayed for one month, in default 3 days' imprisonment. G. R. Moore v. John Brown, claim Ll4 10s 0d on a judgment summons. There being no appearance of debtor, an order was made for immediate payment, or 14 days' imprisonment, execution to be stayed for a fortnight. R. Little v. Willoughby Brassey, J. Maynard v. same, (judgment summons cases) adjourned for a week. L. Stevens v. John Sampie, claim L 8 6s \ on a judgment summons, ordered to pay LI per month. T. J. Dickson v. Joshua Jones, of Mokau. This was an application by MiFinn, instructed by defendant, for rehearing on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction. Mr DeLautour stated that Mr Jones had been given a month's adjournment to instruct a solicitor and had shown laches in not doing so. The application was refused. Michael Mullooly v. J. S. Lincoln, claim Ll2 10s and LSO. Adjourned to Tologa Bay till December 5. Bank of New Zealand v. Charles Westrup, claim L 49 Is 6d on a judgment summons. Mr DeLautour appeared for plaintiff and Mr Finn for debtor. Debtor deposed that he had not paid the judgment because he had not had the means. Since the date of judgment, July 15th, ho had received £15. He received his presentation previous to that date. The amount was supposed to be L10(5, but he had received less than LIOO. None of that was in his hands at the date of judgment. He had no property at the date of judgment, and no debts were owing to him. He occasionally earned money by selling on commission or valuing properties, but he did not think he earned L sin the last twelve months. He got L(io a year remitted from Home. Recei\ ed LIOO in April ; it was quite unexpected by him. Had no shares inland, but had an interest in a Government block of land of 1700 acres, which he held on perpetual lease, and had paid L 23 rent of that. Had no interest in T.e Aroha ; it was trust property. Did not get LSO recently for a share in Te Aroha. Told the Trust Commissioner that he gave LSO for a share in Okahuitiu. Had not got the LSO back, but would not say whether the interest in the block was his or not. Debtor refused to answer further questions as to this transaction. After some remarks between counsel on both sides and the debtor Examination continued : Had a gold watch. Had no horses. By Mr Finn : Had a conversation with Mr Matthews about the Hardys. Stated he had not the means to pay this claim, and did not want to be exposed. The bill now sued for was given to Mr Adair. When the Hardys' action was begun the Bank trot possession of the bill. The income he received was simply an allowance during pleasure. As soon as he got funds he paid £25 off this bill like an honorable man. By the Bench : Had no proposal to make with regard to paying the money. There was no prospect of paying it. Mr Finn stated the moment Major Westrup was able to pay he would. He was not the man to and had never repudiated a just debt. He contended that plaintiff had not proved that debtor had the means to pay, and an order could not issue. He (Mr Finn) knew the reason why the Bank of New Zealand caused this j summons to issue. Mr DeLautour said it was clear debtor had L2OO since the bill was dishonored, and it was nonsense to pretend that he was persecuted because he was asked to pay a bill which was eight months overdue. In addition to that he had been investing money in land, and he had the Okahuitia share subject to " the intricacies of the law." Debtor by Mr Finn : Had no interest in the Okahuitia. Tlie share was conveyed to witness from his trust. It was conveyed as a matter of business as trust for Mary Hardy's children. The Magistrate did not see that he could make any order on the evidence before him. An adjournment for two months was made, Mr Finn objecting.