MAGISTERIAL

Timaru Herald, Volume LXXVI, Issue 11662, 22 January 1902, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL

TEMUIvA —TUESDAY, JANUARY 21st, 1902. (Before Mr C. A. Wray,. S>M.) CIYIL CASES. Judgment- for plaintiffs by default was given in the following cases : —W. McQuire v. 13. J. Worthington, claim. *l7s; T. Brosnalny), v. A. Duncan, claim £1 10s. A QUESTION OP CHANGE. -W. O'Brien v. P. Power, claim £6 for cash lent. Mr Aspinall for plaintiff, Mr for defendant. The plaintiff's case as outlined by his counsel was that in Aprii, 1901, defendant came to his hotel, the Royal at Temuka, with a man named McCabe, and had drinks. Defendant asked if plaintiff would lend him £5, and plaintiff said "Yes, £lO if you want it." Defendant said he would take £6, afld this sum was handed to him. When asked for repayment, defendant- said he never borrowed £6, but that the sum he received was a balance due to him from a cheque of £8 15s which he had handed to Sirs O'Brien to cash, and from which he only received •in the first instance £2 15s, stating on his own option that he would get the balance later on if it was inconvenient at the time.

Evidence for the claim was given by the plaintiff and John McCabe, a farmer at Waitohi, and Mrs O'Brien stated that she had no recollection of cashing a cheque for £8 15s for the defendant. If such had been presented it would have been cashed if convenient. It was a rule of the house not to hold over or delay changing a cheque. It was admitted that a cheque recognised as that dealt witb by Power had passed through plaintiff's hands, also one for £5. For the defence, Mr Raymond submitted that Power's statement of the transaction was correct. He was working for Mr McAteer, a farmer at Waitohi, and his son-in-law, and received from Mr J. Brown, merchant, Temukn, a cheque for £5, which was cashed with O'Brien, and a small account deducted. Later, on April 6th, he received another cheque for £8 15s, whicfi was taken to O'Brien's hotel, defendant then being accompanied, bv Mr James Giant. Mrs O'Brien was asked to cash the cheque, and Power ex- / pressed his willingness to take the odd money and leave £6 until he came down again. ■ When he next called he was in the company of McCabe. and went to O'Brien's to collect the balance of the cheque. He then received the £6 sued for. Counsel submitted that it had transpired in various conversations that 0 Brien had always maintained thai he had only negotiated one cheque for £5 for Power, and until recently had not realised that a- cheque for £8 15s had been dealt with. This lent colour to his client's story. Evidence was given by' defendant, M. McAteer, J. McAteer, J. Brown, merchant, and W. H. Brown, bank manager. His Worship, in reviewing the eyidence, said that the onus of proof lay with the plaintiff, and he saw no reason to disbelieve his version. It was unlikely that McCabe would concoct a story to injure a relative, as it appeared he was of the defendant. It was quite inconceivable that a liotelkeper would forget an ordinary transaction like the cashing of the £8 15s cheque. He would give judgment for plaintiff, with costs. PROHIBITION ORDER.

A prohibition order applied for against a young man was not granted, after evidence had been taken.