R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 62, 9 February 1884, Page 2

R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

(Before J, Booth, Esq., R.M.) FRIDAY. CIVIL CASES. G. Vi HENDERSON Vi G. K. TURTON. Claim on a judgment summons for £3 2s. A order was made that the amount be paid by next Friday, In default three days’ imprisonment. M*INTOSH V. JACKSON. Claim £lO. There was no appearance of the plaintiff, and Mr, Finn, on the defendant's behalf, applied for his (defendant’s) costs, as he had come thirty miles to defend the case. His Worship allowed the defendant his mileage, and 10s, for one day; £1 10si was also allowed for solicitor's fee, SMITH V. A. M'DONALD. No appearance of either party. Case struck out. W. AtiAIR V. J. TURTON. Claim £3 18s. sd. Mr. Turton, for the defence, explained that the case had been adjourned till to-day in order that the evidence of a man up the Coast could be taken, who was supposed to be a witness. He would now ask his Worship to read that evidence if it had been received. His Worship then read the evidence of Turnbull, who resided at Kawakawa, which proved conclusively that Turton, the defendant, had had goods from his (Turnbull’s) store at Ormond on his own account, and that he had not yet paid for them. Mr. Brassey, for the plaintiff, next called J. Briengan, who deposed that the defendant was in his employ in 1878, and that he was in the habit of going to Turnbull’s store at Ormond and getting things on his own account. By the Court—Was in the habit of occasionally giving written orders for goods. The orders produced were some of them. The evidence given by J. Turton at a previous hearing was here read, wherein the defendant had sworn, “ I never knew Turnbull, and never received any account.” Cross-examided by Mr. G. K. Turton—At the alleged time of the occurrence, they (witness and Turton) were working about a mile from the store. Turton was in his employ, and not a partner in the contract. Mr. Brassey here objected to the mode of examination. He had exhausted his patience. These matters were totally irrelevant to the point at issue. On the defendant being put into the box, Mr. G. K. Turton asked that he (defendant) be allowed to make a statement. This having been done, his Worship gave judgment for the amount, and costs, £1 18s. KEEFER V. M’NEIL. Claim, £8 13s. Mr. Brassey appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. DeLautour for the defence. Mr. Keefer knew the defendant. During the month of November, 1882, he advanced the defendant £B. The defendant had frequently admitted the debt, but refused to pay it. By Mr. DeLautour—The occasion on which he had lent the money to defendant was when they were living together in the same house. Defendant had asked him what Mr. Maud would lend £5 for, as he (defendant) was hard up. Witness told defendant that as it was such a small sum, he would advance

the amount, providing it was repaid..by the. end of the month. Defendant said, “ Make it £B.” Was not clear whether he paid the money by notes or by cheque. That (produeed] was a cheque drawn for £B, payable to sell. Made it payable to self because ha did not wish it known that a public servant was borrowing money. Witness had asked defendant for his money several times. Kept no books or accounts. That was the only time the two had any money transactions together. Had never asked the defendant to borrow money for him. The defendant had, over and over again, promised to repay the money. He did not remember paying a Mr; Finlay £8 at the alleged time. He never told anyone that McNeil had borrowed the money because he was short in his accounts in the office. D. McNeil deposed—Had never borrowed the money. Keefer had insinuated last winter that he (defendant) owed him money; Plaintiff made a claim last October by letter. Defendant tore the letter up. and gave plaintiff a sound thrashing for his pains, Keefer told him that a man named Finlay had “ had” him for £B. Finlay went to Auckland, and left ..Keefer lamenting for his money, Told Keefer that he (witness) would not see him “ stuck” for all the money. Mr. Keefer was not always sober, and used to keep xery late hours. Witness never saw the money, and never saw the cheque (produced) dratt'm By Mr. Brassey—Mr. Uantle was present when he thrashed Keefer. Keefer was not in bed at the time. Remembered receiving a telegram from Keefer which stated that the latter was very short of money, and asking witness to telegraph him £6. Remembered having a conversation with H. McKay about the matter. McKay mentioned a row he had Dad with Keefer. Never thought for a meat that Keefer was in a position to lend money to any one. He offered to share Keefer’s loss, whereby he had lost £8 with Finlay, because he (Keefer) was an old friend. He gave Keefer the thrashing afterwards; Did not screw any ducks’ heads off on the night in question. Mr, Keefer asked me to get my brother to lend him money, as he (Keefer) was going into business. By Mr, De Lautour—l never sent any telegram to Keefer, A search has been made with a view of discovering if such was the case, but without avail. John (Jamtie, was living in the same house with the plaintiff and defendant in November; 1882, and remembered them coming to blows. McNeil told Keefer that he was a Her, and did not owe him any money. Keefer waa like the rest of them, sometimes rather excited. Remembered Keefer complaining that Finlay had “let him in” for some money over a running match. Never heard McNew say he owed Keefer any money. At the time of the row between Keefer and defendant the room was in total darkness; Did not think Keefer was in bed at the time. Did not think McNeil was drunk at the time; By Mr. Brassey—Keefer had often told him that McNeil owed him money i Mr. Brassey said that he had further evidence, but as it was not forthcoming he rnhst take one of two courses—either aik for an adjournment or accept a nonsuit. In the event of the latter course he would take out another summons at once. Mr. DeLautour must object to an adjournment, as there was not one tittle of evidence to prove that the defendant owed the money. A charge like this should not be allowed to hang over his client's head; as he was a Government official, and if this charge was proved if must end in defendant's dismissal; In fact, the Government were only waiting the result of the action; Under those circumstances he must ask for a nonsuit. The Court granted a nonsuit, with costs to defendant, £1 16s. DUNLOP AND GOLDSMITH V. SEARS. Claim £6 6s. Mr. Robinson appeared in support of the claim. The plaintiff having proved the indebtedness, the defendant was sworn and stated that Mr. Berry owed him money, and by arrangement he (defendant) had given the plaintiff an order on Berry, but the latter had refused to accept it. The Court said it could not consider what was between the defendant and Mr. Berry, as X °y tside the present case/ " Judgment would be for plni-uof, £2 12s. The defendant left the box complaining loudly about people "walking about with gold chains and their hands in their pockets; and living upon hard-working mem” This closed the business of the day; and the Court adjourned;