RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume IIII, Issue 1764, 28 August 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

•THIS DAT; '"■ " .i.-nw f Boforo ffl. Fbas'eb, Esq., R.ltf.) - .- - 7 CIVIL- SIDE. f,,. JUDGMENTS FOB PIiAIKgjfpFS. ' In tbo following cues judgment fu given for the plaintiffs'.— ' . v ■P. Lompriero v. J. S. Fitch—a claim of £25 17b for goods; Wilkinson and Horton v. G. lieere. —a claim of £13 11s 6d, for work done. Mr. E. H. Power appeared subsequently to the case being called, and said on behalf of the defendant, the former part of the amount was disputed. His Worship would not allow the defence as the necessary notice shid not been lodged. Plumridge and Miller v. Ellworth—claim,. £5.16s 4d,'for goods; * payment to be 15s per fortnight, commencing on Monday week. • ' ,; ADJOURNED CASES. The following cases were adjourned till 4th September:— -, - - J. T. E. Rogan v. Golden Barly" Goldmining Company—Claim, £17 JJs, for professional serTicea. -- - ----- C. Judd r. Old .Whau Goldmining Company—A claim, of £38 10s 6d, h fot work done. Of this aniptibt> £18 2i"ahd £1 8s 6d costs were paid into Cenrt. The case had been adjourned aj? last Court day, and was--allowed again to stand over on -the application of Mr. Tyler. •*>-"•-., . . ;,*" Defended' Cases. • *'•""'* 3. kilgoub v» o. a. beere. This was a claim of £1413s for services ( rendered. Mr. Power appeared, to defend the action on behalf ot Mr. Beere. J. Eilgour was examined as to the debt. Mr. Power said the iummpns was made out in the name of J. Kilgour, and the bill in that ot Dr. Kilgour. He would like)to know whether the gentleman was entitled to assume the title of doctor. - , Dr. Kilgour said he was' an M.D: 'of the University of Edinburgh:' '""'"? Mr. Power pleaded on, behalf of Mr. Beere that he was not in affluent circumstances. ''.- 1 ,;. Dr. Kilgour said the account had been of over five years standing. Judgn ent "for plaintiff "for" amount claimed, with costs. •■ - M:. m CHICK V. NIKOBIMA POUTATABA. This was an action.for the recovery of rates, amounting to £26 14s. Mr. Tyler appeared jfpr the plaintiff. Mr. Macdonald for defendant^ and , addressed the Court to shew, that the first part of the existing Act Had' repealed all other Highway.. Acts}/arid had conge* I quently left this district without an Act, I the second portion was not' in force. There was.no laving clause in .the, Act. Mr. Tyler said there was, and referred - his learned friend to clause 8.:- * J Mr. Macdonald read the Bth clause in the Act possessed by him, and the words " and second. sections " were not mentioned in it. On comparison of the papers it was discovered that there was an, error in the printing of the Act, as that put in by Mr. Tyler, and the one jn Court both contained the words " and second lecjtions." Mr. Macdonald thought it could not be a printer's error, as put of .the three Acts before the Court, _two contained, the words and one did not. It pointed most significantly to those Government officials under whose hands the Act appeared* If it was not an error, the only other conclusion* to arrive at was that there had been a wilful attempt to mislead^ the ~ public. _„- 1 . His Worship said in th>i JLcc Ite Joad * the Clerk had marked in tho%*rd*in , ink. Mr. Macdonald here discovered in Ma Act that the words "and second sections" were also wanting in themarginal, note: that could scarcely be another ertor lof the printer. •* *-~ ''" )^ Mr. Tyler replied, and urged that th« Court would never assume that parties holding the high positions of those whose names were attached to the Act would be , guilty of adding to or taking from anything in the Act after it had been passed, , and before it went to the printer. His Worship said he had been led to un- - understand by some one in authority that the alteration had been made by the Speaker of the House, *nd endorsedupy him. But of course that would north- " fiuence him in adjudicating upon the case, —being merely information gathered in conversation. ■ ' - \" ' "** - The case for the defence rested on this . point, and his Worship adjourned the " case pro forma for a fortnight, in order that he might go to Auckland for inform*- , tion. ' r ■ H. PABSIOW V. BUCHAKAIt. ~; > This was a olsim of^jCpjr ajqwy,^ and received. * • ' Mr. Macdonald appeared for the plain* tiff; Mr. Tyler for the defence. - The circumstances of the case were that the plaintiff had been engaged in .business. He became envoived in diffi*v culties, when he gave certain promiimi^j notes to the defendatnt. One of" those-* bills had been discounted by defeadant before the meeting of creditors, WBttt*deed was sifcned accepting Si; 6drittthi „

~ pound. In order to pay the first dividend, bi agreed upon, tho plaintiff paid money * into the Bank of New Zealand. The defendant had then presented the first note at the Union Bank, and it was discounted through that bank and finally cashed .it the New Zealand Bank on its coming to maturity. The plaintiff claimed this £50. J. Buchanan deposed, that he was a: l^f^lliU^M^^O^W Henry | KmMrT'Thepomwaory hot©produced I vu Mgft«d by Mr. Plrslow in. his (witneti')' faror. He discounted the bill, through the Union Bank. (Mr. Mac-! dona^feinarked that there was a D on face of the bill. On loqking at the bill His Wpwhitf iaid.lt Wf s the first he had seen thatn«d not the stamp of the Bank on it). Th* proceeds, were put io witness' credit, iMtnevtixne of- the deed produced being signed, he was-present at the meeting of! creditors..■ He .represented himself ss\ being a 1 creditor for £181 when he signed that deed/ 1' The bill was included. ' He; told no one at the time that he had dis-j counted' that bill. Witness received the; firsfjbart ef the r debtor's dividend on the dSlß4|Kpdr the bill for £50 also. He con-; sidereSFthat Wai perfectly fair under the' circumstances. Those circumstances were that he considered tho arrangement had been by fraud.' At the" meeting he had Jna3e no distinction between being liable for £181 and 'being an actual creditor 'for that amount. The plaintiff i had paid 2s 6d on the £181. He had certainly received 22g 6d in the pound on the; bill. " * > T. Murrayi "manager of New Zealand Bank, disposed—That he recognised the. E.N. produced. The money was paid, from the account of Mr. Parslow in favor; of Mr. Buchanan. The note was pre-' sented by tho (Triion Bank. He should say that tho bill was not discounted.' They usually bore a stamp. Mr. Tyler snid thcro were a number of, allegations-in the complaint that were not; proved at> all. • The defendant was not tfce holdenot the bill at the time the deed Wis signed; it had merely been discountedby the Union Bank. 4 ' Some argument here ensued. , Mr. Tyler contended that the deed was obtained by false representations, and that, in consequence the deed must be void. It! appeared that Mr. Parslow had defrauded his'creditors Inasmuch as he had, when insolventfrcmoved some goods belonging to him before the meeting of credito-s, t which-were'takenback after the deed was 1 signed. The second dividend had not, been paid, and therefore the-demand ra--1 Tired, unless the deed released the defen- \ danjt irom all further claim. Mr. Tyler i finally said he should proceed with the endeavor to prove the case of fraud, and called— f . Henry Parslow. He deposed that! goods had been taken to Mr. Barnott's, who had paid, the fitness in cash for the amount/ iHc had. never asked one O'Dbwd to stow some goods for him while; he got through his difficulty. He never; returned the cash to Mr. Barnett. . i ~~ ~~£lear:-lftwn*tt was next, examined, and] deposed that he had formerly been a I hotel-keeper in Shortland. He remembered receiving goods then. He bought -them from Mrs. Paaslow, and paid over £20 for them. He had not received any ■ part of the money back again. Edward Fogarty, deposed, that he had resided at Mr. Uarnett's during the, month of SVbruary. He used to receive goods. when they were brought. He could not; say anything as to the price of; the goods brought. This closed the evidence. Counsel; addressed the Court in- turn. His Wor-| ship said he would reserve his judgment' in. this.case. . ( Another case—o. M. Creagh v. S. Fernandez, a claim of £20 for damages—, was proceeding when we went to press. '