RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1436, 3 December 1885, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.

Temuka—Wednesday, Dec 2, 1885. [Before J. Beswick, Esq., R.M.] OBSCENE LANGUAGE. John Canard was brought up charged with having used obscene language in a public place. Mr Aspinail appeared on his behalf, and applied for a remand. The remand was granted for a week, the accused to enter into a bond of £lO and find a surety of £lO for his appearance. CIVIL CASES. W. Colt man v. E. Smith, claim £7 6s. —There was no appearance on the part of the plaintiff,—The defendant said the case had been settled, and so it was struck out. J. Langskail v. W. Eagleston, claim £3 ; judgment summons.—Mr Aspinail appeared for plaintifl. The plaintiff stated that he had obtained judgment in April last. The defendant had been working since.—The defendant stated he only earned £9 since April and he had a wife and five children to support.—The case was adjourned. John Patersot?. v. Harris, claim £lO lis 9d. —Mr Aspinail appeared for plaintiff.— Judgment by default for amuont claimed and costs.

F. C. Murray v. Smith and Mclllraitli, claim £3114s 9d.—Mr Tosswill appeared for plaintiff and Mr Hamersley for defendants.—The whole amount was disputed. W. A. Murray gave evidence with regard to three of the items, in the bill of particulars. Mclllraitli was driving the coach and the oats went to his stables. Received £35 from Smith, on account of Smith and Mclllraitli. Mclllraith was to have received £5 for breaking in a pair of horses ; he was to have the use of any of them he liked. One of them was drowned after it was partly broken in. The other horse was not thoroughly broken in.—To Mr Hamersley: I am sure I applied for the amount when Smith and Mclllraith dissolved partnership. This was in January, 1883. Smith then promised to pay. W. Spurdon gave evidence to the effect that he delivered all the goods with the exception of the three items proved by the previous witness. Mr Hamersley raised the point that the goods were sold by the firm of Murray Bros., and now the suit was brought by F. C. Murray. His Worship said it was sufficient that the debts were assigned to F. C. Murray.

Daniel Mclllraith : I have had no notice that the books had been made over by the trustees to F. 0, Murray. I dissolved partnership with Smith. I heard from Murray about a week after the dissolution about this account. I told him I knew nothing about it. He had previously said he did not recognise me in the firm, and I told him about it when he asked me for the money. I broke in the two horses. Thera was no agreement as to price. The one that was drowned was broken in before it was drowned.

To Mr Tosswill : I told Mr Murray the hrown mare was not fit to be driven in a buggy. She was broken into doubleharness.

W. A. Murray, recalled by the Court : 1 swear most positively I wrote a letter to the defendants to the effect that the book debts in the estate of W. A. Murray had been assigned to F. C. Murray. After hearing counsel on both sides, His Worship said there was no doubt but that the amount was due, and that it was not paid when all accounts were paid. He would give jadgment for the amount claimed and costs. As for breaking in the horses, Mclllraith had put in no demand, and he would not allow for them. He was very sorry for Mclllraith, but he would have to give judgment against him. Mr Hamersley gav© notice that he would 'appeal. Siegert and Fauvel v. J. Northam, claim £l6 16s 6d. Mr Raymond for the plaintiffs, and Mr Aspinall for tho defend* ant.

Mr Raymond explained that the amount was due under the following circumstances : —Carter, who was a storekeeper at Hilton, supplied a man named Taggart with goods, and Northam was responsible for payment. The plaintiffs bought Carter's book debts, and now sued for the recovery of this amount. A. W. Gaze, book keeper at Siegart and Fauvel's, said : The amount sued f or is the amount of a book debt which* the plaintiffs purchased from H. T. Carter. Northam saw me at Temuka and disputed the account as incorrect. The goods were supplied to Taggart who was bailee of some horses belonging to Northam on Wigley's estate. He made an appointment to meet Mr Siegert at Hilton. Northam and Siegert met but came to no agreement. To Mr Aspinall : I do not know whether any notice was given to Northam, but believe a note was put at the bottom of the account to the effect that the book debts had been purchased. J. Siegert: I went to Hilton to see Noitham but he was not there. Subsequently I saw Northam b*t he said ho could not pay as the contract did not pay. Rendered an account to Northam myself with notice to pay amount to Siegert and Fauvel about 6th October.

To Mr Aapioall ; Bought debts on October Ist. Carter told me Northam was responsible for the accouut, Did not ask Northam if he whs responsible. Accepted Carter's word for it. Do not recollect, receiving letter said to be returned. Went to Hilton lo meet Northern but did not see him. Saw Northain at ' office in Temuka when he said the contract was not paying. Said he had lio money to pay. If there was money coming from the contract lie would hare paid. Never applied to Taggart for money. Never rendered an account to Taggart. Charles Oliver : I kept the accounts for Mr Carter. I delirered some of the goods to Taggart's camp. They were charged to Northam. Goods previously supplied to Taggart W6re paid for by Northam. To Mr Aspmall: Carter tald me Northam would be responsible. W. Aitken, deposed : I was ploughman for Taggart at the contract, and kept an account of the stores. Northam told me it would be best to keep an account. My account is over £4 less than that rendered by Siegert and Fauvel. James Northam : I became responsible to Mr Allan for Taggart. I never spoke to Carter on the subject. I received Siegert ani Fauvel's account, and relumed it, stating I was not liable, but told them to get an order from Taggart and I would pay. £ saw the same account

in Taggart's possession. I took the contract and sub-let it. to Taggart, giving him my teams and charging him la per acre. To Mr Raymond : I did not deny my liability to Mr Gaze because the question did not crop up. His Worship said there was not sufficient evidence to show Northam- was responsible, and nonsuited the plaintiffs. MAINTENANCE ORDER. . Mr W. G. Aspinail applied on behalf of Mrs Sarah Gill for an order to compel her husband, William Gill, to contiibute to her support. The defendaut was not present. Mrs Gill statail that she married defendant in Timaru in January 1874, and had five children— the eldest was nine years old, and the youngest one and a-half years. Her husband left her in May last, and all he had Bent her since was £l3. He was in Wellington in partnership in a hotel- the Army and Navy. He recently dissolved partnership, and entered into another hotel- -the Cricketer's Arm's—in partnership with a man named Wood. His Worship ordered that the defendant ! pay 15s per week for the maintenance of his wife, and 15s for the maintenance of the children—in all, 30s per week ; and in default of any payment to go to gaol for one month. The Court then rose.