RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT-Yesterday.

Thames Advertiser, Volume XVI, Issue 5181, 30 May 1885, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT-Yesterday.

. (Beforo H. Kenrick,'Es'q., R,M.) : Forgie v. Hickory.—Claim, £3 3s 7d. This case had, been adjourned; from a previous Co.urt day to enable defendant .to dispose of some land of which ho was part owner. The land not yet having been through the Court, the case, was with the consent of the ; plaintiff still further adjourned for ' twelve weeks to enable the defendant to satisfy the judgment. " Gellion v. Thorp.—Claim, £57 lfo Gd, for dishonoured ; promissory note.. Mr Miller appeared for, the plaintiff. The defendant did not appear. Judgment was given for the plaintiff, with costs £319s 6d. . :-v- . ■' ■ -..■■■ I

Baggott v. Waiotahi Road Distriot.Claim, £30,': for trespass.—Mr Lush, for defendant, asked; for an ajournment for a reasonable timers considerable evidence was required; he further asked that the caße bo-heard at To Aroha, a's : a number of witnesses would have to bo brought from j Cambridge.'— Mr Miller, who appeared for the plaintiff, objected to the change of venue; if the defendant company wished they could ; have their witnesses evidence taken at Te Aroha or Cambridge, but he saw no reason why the .plaintiff should be brought to Te Aroha. Adjourned for a fortnight, the case to. be heard at the Thames.

Buokley ,v. Tasker, - This account was paid into Court, but being paid after 10 o'clock costs were; allowed, amounting to £1 Oa 6d.

D.°R. Gellion v. , T. E. Siuw,—Claim, £12.155. lOd, cash lent.-Mr Miller for plaintiff.—D. R, Gellion deposed to having had share transactions with the. defendant. Ho held shares on hand forisale,on which lie made Shaw an advance of' £10. ; Paid the money to Robert Kelly, batcher, of Paeroa, at the request of T. E. Shaw, on the 4th' November, 1881,. Produced the stump of his cheque book of that date, on which was written,"T, Shaw for West, per Kelly," Did not dispose of the shares, as they would not float. Since that time' had often applied to 'him for the money, and on no occasion had defendant ever disputed the amount claimed.-To . de-.i fenbant: The instruction to advance to Kelly was by letter,written by you.to Col. Fraser, asking for an-,.advance.- You did not. make an application to me personally, but wrote asking Kelly to get an advance on the shares.—T. E. Shaw stated that he entered into an agreomentjwith 001. Fraser in 1881 to take up a piece of ground. He carried out -the. conditions of the . agreement, but was under- the impression that the money was {in hand on the sale of shares in the Progress claim, and gave an order on: Col, Fraser to Kelly, _hira to pay out of moneys on'hand.: Never "gave any order / or. wrote / any letter authorising-|'Mr Gellion to pay money oh his account.; ..The order was cashed out o'f moneys in Col. Frasor's hands for the sale of. Progress shares. Shares had been sold to the extent :of £60, but he had never received any account of what was done with;, the, money. He was /aware/that he owed £10 on account of Riley, but had no recollection of having received any letter charging the account for. money, paid to Kelly. An amount .of £10, was owing plaintiff, partly by . defendant/and partly by Col. Frasdr.-r-Plaintiff..was nonsuited,; : Thomas'Diok .Y. BoTCHER.-Claim, £10 17s' 9.d, for. . work' and ' labour • done.—Mr Miller appeared for the - plaintiff, and Mr Lush for defendant.—-This was the/ rehearing of a case on March 27th, 1885, when plaintiff was nonsuited, but having obtained further evidenoe ho now brought it into Court again.; Thomas Dick, black' smith, Upper, Pollen-street, deposed that defendant and James Smith came to : his shop about 12 months .ago, and asked mo if I would ..do the ironwork;for a cart. There were four of us ! in ! the shop— Butoher, Smith myself, and my boy. Butcher said he' was getting Smith to build the' body of. a cart for him, - and wanted to 'know- if I; would/do. tho iron.work. He asked, if I had any sjpribgja,' arid I showed hira Borne. They were too heavy for.hitb, and'he desired me to make him; a lighter/pair.' I then showed him a patent axle, but that was. too dear. I then sent the boy .for a Yankee axle, and he said that would. Buit;him.;!: He asked how much it would cost to do the, ironwork,'and | said ■I,could,,not tell.till I : saw. what work there was on it. He asked- me to take some bacon in part payment, whiohT agreed to do,' Ho desired me to get the work done, as soon as possible, as ho was in a hurry to take his pork round to sell. The particulars of tho work done were entered . into my book as soon as I had finished'the work. Butcher is now indebted to me for the sum of £10 17s 9d. I did not give him the bill, because I was waiting for him to take the cart 'away. He made the excuse that lie had not taken the cart away because lie could not get the/ cart across the railway, and that ; if ho liad had it he would have paid me long ago. At the last .case my boy was away-i at/Mercury,, Bayj so I could riot get his evidence; He showed the articles to Butcher. I did not know Smith in the transaction, but I gave .Butcher/theorder-.for/ the bacon on account of tho first' work done. Smith did not give- me any order for the work,/but; I/ went to/Smith's Bhop for the details of the. measurements. I. did not know SmiLh .in the transaction between himself and Butcher, Tho boy was oh the Thames, and I took him to Mr Miller. Butcher was in tho shop twice, first when he gave me the order, and then when he promised to pay me tho £10. Tho words ho used; wero>l will pay you the £10.— Wm.'MoCoid, a'former cmployo of the : plaintiff; deposed that ho had been for sometimo employed at' Mcrcury Bay, returned to Thames a fortnight ago, and was sub-pconaed in this case. About twelve months-'-ago' saw Butcher and Smith in Dick's shop, they went to see about somo mountings for a spring cart being built in Smith's shop. Smith waß going to build the body. Butcher looked at a spring, but he said it was. too heavy, as ho wanted one about five leaves. Dick showed him an axle, which. lie said would do if it was cut and shook. Witness then brought him another axle. , Dick said he would let him have,the springs at what they cost him in Auckland; Smith gave no., order in my presence, after the! ironwork was done, Butcher-camo into the shop and Bard, I suppose you want some money; . Butoher 'said he could not- let him have' any, but as his motlierrinrlaw was / dead, from. whom lie expected £10, Jie would, let hio) have that,

Butcher himself brought the hams and bacon,—To Mr Lush: They wcro all ■ within a few yards of each other. He did not hear any whispering. Butcher paid' they were going to Road's for tho timber.: —To His Honor: Butchor gavo tho order for tho ironwork, Witness eomotimos entered the ironwork, but entered it on a slate against Butchor, Ho took tho' work to Smith's shop, Smith lias never made, any mention to me about' paying for this ironwork.--Butcher stated he wont to Dick's shop to; see a pair of wheels which Smith said he could doctor up, and which were ia Dick's possession. He'had previously entered iuto a contract with Smith to build a cart. (Agreement to that effect produced.) This agreement was sigued beforo they , went into' Dick's, shop. Had had a talk with Smith about the building of the cart; one Sunday at his (witness's) residence, and afterwards got a friend to draw out the agreement, which was signed before going 10. Dick's. .Witness did not order the ironwork, not having anything to do with Dick in tho matter, but had delivered the ham and bacon on Smith's account to Dick. The £10 was sont by tho son of witness's mother-in-law from India to pay' for burying her after she was dead. Mr Twentyman received that. Had signed the' agreement before going to Dick's shop, and. did'not say anything to Dick about the order for the ironwork, but in general coversation had spoken about tho ironwork ou Smith's account. ' Did not speak about tho springs; Smith took him there. Had never spoken about my mother-in-law's £10. ■ Had heard the boy say the £10 was mentioned, but had no confidence in what the boy said,, as he had said what Dick-instructed him to say. Had supplied the* haras and- bacons to Smith on account of tho cart Smith gave the order for the ironwork. Witness did not agree to take any of the things, but only looked at. the wheels. The next time witness was in the shop was when he went to take the ham and bacon. He never went back to the shop and promise to pay the £10, nor did Dick ever ask for

the money till he sent in the bill through Mr Miller. The agreement was drawn up by a friend of Smith's in a little office adjoining a blacksmith's shop. Witness had charged Smith £6 19s for cash and goods, and supplied him other goods since. —Smith deposed that he was a wheelwright living at the Thames, He had agreed to build a'ctirfc for the defendant for the sum of £15. The agreement produced is the

document referred to, andhad boen signed in liis (Smith's) shop. Defendant had the agreement drawn up, and brought it to liiin to sign. He considered himself liable to plaintiff for the ironwork, but had other accounts 'against- him for other transactions, and had often told him that he was willing to settle with him.—To Mr

Miller: Had told defendant that o he could supply Dick with bacon, and stop" it out of

the money for the ironwork. Had taken delivery of the ironwork from.. plaintiff wben;he had finished it. Plaintiff had often asked him for payment, and had been told that he should receive payment as soon as he had settled with witness. Plaintiff had left a bill on the bench, but the wind had blown it away.—Thomas Dick, re-called, stated he never asked Smith for the account for the ironwork, but had billed him for £12 9s 6d, which was still' owing, for other work, and 1 witness owed him (Smith) £9.—Considerable argument was entered into by both counr sels as to the reliability of the evidence adduced; ;which was of anv exceedingly contradictory nature.—The Bench, having reviewed the evidence at length, decided that the balance was in favour of plaintiff, and, gave judgment for the amount claimed with costs, £7 4s.

• Miis E. Phaser v. F. Lipsey.—Claim, £19, for ejoctment and rent.-Mr Miller for the .plaintiff; Mr Lush for the defendant. Mr F, Lipsoy, being sworn, deposed be knew Constable Law, who served him with a notico to quit (produced).— Col. W. Fraser, sworn : Was the husband of plaintiff. The block marked 119 on the plan (produced) belonged "to her. Purchased it T in Mr MacDonald'a name some years ago/but on bis leaving the Thames it was transferred to Mrs Fraser. Permission was given by him to Mr Lipsey to reside on the land, which he considered was worth 10s :a Week, . Defendant is still in occupation of the land, and lias not paid any rent; £19, rent for 48 weeks,- is still due to plaintiff, Judgment was obtained some months ago for .0.ver..£40, none of which had yet been paid.. The notice to quit borp;his Wife's signature. Defendant had, no- claim whatever on the land. De-fendant-was in the Paoroa Hotel, and on leaving, it he (witness) gave Mr Lipsey permission .to occupy it. The land was purchased s6me 8 years ago from the nativeß by... Mr. Mackay for 1 £870. Mr Lipsey did not contribute anything towards the purchase, of .the land.; his wife'supplied aIL thoi money. Mr McDonald held the land as trustee for Mrs Fraeer. Was transferred to Mrs Fraser under the Land. Transfer Act. • .Never knew that Mr., Lipsey claimed a share in the land. Lipaey and witness were in partnership when he gave permission to him to'occupy, but ho had not paid anything towards improvements. Mr O'Halloran built the cottage and fences on the land, and lived in the house for some two years, when Mrs Fraser purchased it from him. The partnership was for three years, and was dissolved at the end of that time.— F. Lipsey, re-called, stated that he was in occupation of the disputed land. Ho and Mr Mackay negotiated for the purchase of. the land from the natives,, Paid a portion of the purchase money for the land and. always had an interest: in it, iMackay' was also 1 to have a share in it, and Col. Fraser. Got possession from.natives, AVas a consenting party to it .being trans, ferreel to Mr Mac Donald as a trustee. Nothing was done without his sanction. He had since heard that it was transferred to Mrs Fraser. Claimed to a have a share in it, having paid a portion of the purchase money. Intended to prosecute his claim in the Supaeme Court. It was understood that be was to have a share; Col. Fraser was asked to come in; Had done improvements on it - fencing, draining, &c.—To Mr Millor: Would prosecuto his claim in the Suprome Court whon ho was ready Was present at the salo of the land, and gavo his pel mission to have it cut up in allotments, ,but did not receive any money for .his sharo. Asked for his sharo from Col. Fraser, who novor disputed his claim until to-day. Had partnership aocounts with him, but not in this matter. Claimed tp .be a partner in the land with Col. Fraacr,. not Mrs Fraser. A day was appointed to jettle up the partnership, but tho matter was never settled up altogether,: owing to Col. Fraser being suddenly taken ill while at lunch. It was true that lie had given defendant two promissory notes. He had nothing to show that he had.paid anything for the land,—By tho Bench : All tho interest in tiro- land • was bought direct from tho natives in fttr name. Never had anythjpg in writing j it was simply a verbal' (tgrpement. Was vory ill at the timo judgment was givon against him, and

he telegraphed dawn to that effect, but the telegram was received too late,—Mr Lush contoDtled that tho Conrt had no jurisdiction on the matter, and on this ground tho case should bo dismissed.— His Worship said he thought defendant's remedy was against Mr Mac Donald, Ho would order that possession bo given up by defendant on or before tho 9th August, and judgment would be given for tho amount claimed (£l9) with costs £2 Is. Tho Conrt then adjourned.