MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Colonist, Volume L, Issue 12259, 3 June 1908, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

YESTERDAY. 4 (Before Mr H. Eyre-Kenny, S.M.) Magmnity and Son v. Eric Oit, claim for £18 18a 6d, balance due on a promissory note. Judgment for amount claimed, and £2U3s 6d coats. Peter Peterson Vi, William Fitzgerald. In this case plaintiff olaiffi; «d the sijtri of 103, alleged to .have beea wrongfully detained by'tiefen- 1 daat. who is licensee of the Ship HoteL \lt appears that the plaintiff handed over £1 in -payment for four drinks, and although, asked for tbe change, tbe defendant retained the whole amount, alleging that plaintiff owed him an account for- board and lodging and for meals supplied, I which was now made the subject :of j a counter claim. Mr P. B. Atkinson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr C. ,1. Harley for the defendant. On the counter claim Mr Harley called \ evidence as follows: — I Fred Lindsay Backhouse stated he «vas manager of the Ship Hotel (In | reply to tbe Magistrate, witness stated that Mr Fitzgerald, the I licensee, was a chronic sufferer from ' rheumatic gout) He had been niana--1 ger since November, J906. Plaintiff had ooarded at tbe Ship Hotel from I December 21st to the 27th, 1906, the charge for which was 4s per day, which had not been paid Lie had also had two meals on May 18th, 1908, for which he had not paid. Witness bad received the sum of £1 from plaintiff for four drinks, and bad retained 18s 3d in payment of the account. Cross-examined.' He had made personal application to plaintiff for the motley. He did not know that plain* tiff had mauej a complaint at' 1 the : Police Station immediately after he lived at the Ship HoteL He was there about Christmas time, 1906. He knew Peter Peterson, who slept in the same room as himself at the had deducted tbe money* Ambrose Lough stated that he hotel. He was sure Peterson slept in the room. Mr Atkinson said the defence to tbe counter-claim was a distinct denial, he called— Peter Peterson, : who stated he was a labourer. He denied being at the Ship Hotel from 21st to 27th December, 1906. He was at Tadmor at the time, and came to town just before Christmas. He stayed with Mr Carlsson at the Provincial Hotel for about, a montbj and then went to -Topbou.se* He never had any meals at the Ship Hotel on May 18tb, 1908. When he paid defendant for the drinks he asked him for the change, but be would not give it. He then went and complained at the Police Station. He absolutely denied owing tbe money. Oross.examined: He knew the witness Lough. He had never slept in tlie same room with him at the Ship Hotel. He had had dinner at the Ship Hotel the Christmas before last, but had paid for it When be paid tbe pound for the drinks, Fitzgerald said he owed him the money. He didn't keep a diary, but he remembered it was just before Christmas he oame into town, as they were knooked off the railway. Carl Oarlsson stated that he knew Mr Peterson, who had always Stayed at hi 3 hotel since he came to Nelson, He came to his place on December 24th, 1900, and s fayed four weeks. . He also stayed with witness in Mby of this year. \ Cross - examined: He could remember when any of his customers came to his hotel. Plaintiff paid him cash for his board. His Worship gave -judgment for plaintiff on the claim, 193, together with Court costs 9s, and witnesses' expenses ss. He also found for plaintiff on the counter-claim. ! Brown and Kerr , v. Annie Hell, .a claim for £7, balance of account owing for jewellery and repairs. "Mr Harley appeared for plaintiff, and Mr£P. B, Atkinson for defendi ant. 1 Mr Harley stated that defendant was the wife of Edward Bromley Ball, who lived in a nice house at Stoke, whioh belonged to' Mrs Bell* | and credit had been easily got from tradesmen in town. The Sfcoke property was sold, and Mrs Bell got tbe proceeds and went to the North Isand, while Mv Bell went bankrupt. Mrs Bell furnished the money for him to file, and left with £150. He called — Walter Louis Kerr, who stated he was a member of the firm of Brown and Kerr, watchmakers and jewellers, of Nelson. He knew Mrs Annie Bell, who lived at Stoke. He knew the property belonged to her. He charged Mrs Bell with the items mentioned in the account. The tw# band rings, 27s 6d, .were supplied to the order of Mrs Bell. The repairs were charged to Miss Bell lv the day book, but in the ledger to Mrs Bell. He knew it was Mrs Bell's jewellery, and so entered it to her in the ledger. Mrs Bell obtained three gold watches, and took^them home. Miss Bell returned two next morning, and siid, "Mother is going to keep the £10 10s one." Witness produced the ledger and showed entries of the items. He charged Mrs Bell because he "knew she had property, and knew the goods were for her, anu he knew no one else in the transaction. The aoooiint had been rendered every quarter to Mrs Bromley Bell. She paid something on account, and the balance of £7 waa owing. She had written about the account, but he bad not tbe letter. He oould not find the letter; it must have been destroyed. He showed the letter to Mr Bell. The letter stated that she was short of money, but she would pay them if they gave her time. It was signed by Annie Bell. He had asked Mr Bell for payment, It was on account of the letter he had asked Mr Bell, he did not like pressing Mrs Bell again. Cross-examined : He knew Mr Bell went bankrupt. Tney got notice that their debt was included, but they didn't prove because they did not* recognise Mr Bell.' He knew Mr Bell's assets were nil. He always looked to Mra 8011, and considered tbpy had no remedy against Mr Bell. If tbe position had been reversed, and Mrs Bell had gone bankrupt with no assets, he would have proved against her estate. There was some talk among Mrs Bell's creditors of trying to eet hold of her property. He did not know whether the object of these proceedings was to ultimately make Mrs Bell bankrupt. He knew there were some more Motions coming od. He bad talked the matter over with perhaps two others of Mrs Bell's creditors. They were present. They had never discussed making her bankrupt. It was put this way, if she • did not pay, whether they could not make her bankrupt. He would swear positively he had not discussed with any other person that, the object of these prooediDga was to' make Mrs Bell a bankrupt. He was quite sure they had always rendered the accounts to Mrs Bell. The account to 'Mr Bell produced was in his writing. That must have been about the time the property was disposed of. Since Mrs Bell hßd been unwell he bad asked Mr Bell for tbe money, and he pai 1 the last instalment that appee red in their accounts. He had several times asked- Mr Bell to. .pay the money. On account of his wife's illness he thought they had a remedy against Mr Bell. Of the other items paid, Mrs Bell paid the £3 and Mr Bell tbe other two. He wou^d be very much mistaken if Mrs Bell was not in the shop when tbe watch was bought. He did not know her daughter Editb. He had no recolJfction of seeing Mr Bell about the time (June, 1903). He knew Mr Bell before then, 1 and knew he worked at Everett Bros.' Mr .Bell did not order the watch. He did not say before the bankruptcy proceedings to the Official Assignee or any otber

tiefton that it was a disgraceful thing for the bankrupt to buy presents for his wife and then not pay for them. Re-examined : He did not desire to make Mr 3 Bell a bankrupt. His real object was to obtain payment. He had not takan advice as to, the pro-| ceedings. He was not aware of the amount of judgment or combined judgments which must be obtained before a petition in bankruptcy can be. -lodged : This conbloded the case for tfce plaintiffs. The ftvidence of Mr and Mrs Bell, taken ay Auckland on commission* was reviewed by Mr Atkinson. Mrs Bell stated sbe had never obtained the goods, had never received any account from Brown and Kerr, and had never paid an instalment. Mr Bell stated that at the time the watch was bought Mrs Bell was too ill to go out, and he had told his daughter Edith to buy the watch as a present for her mother. Mr Atkinson quoted a recent decision of the House of Lords which he contended applied to the case, and after some lsgal argument the Magistrate said he would reserve judgment, which he hoped to be able to give on Tuesday next. Several other cases against the same defendant were accordingly also adjourned until Tuesday.