CIVIL SIDE.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2096, 22 September 1875, Page 2

CIVIL SIDE.

Judgment Summonses.

. a. s. o'halloban y. jambs hanham. 'Claim £2 18s 9d on a judgment sum* mons. This case was adjourned till next Court day in consequence of the defendant being absent against his will (he was yesterday sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment.)— .•-... -*——~r~~~t~'~T~~~-” . THEODOBK SEIFEBT V. JOHN BABE. Claim £5 2s and costs £2 12g 6d on judgment summons. Defendant was examined and said lie was the person against whom judgment was obtained for the amount claimed.

Cross-examinated by Mr 'Campbell, defendant said the debt was incurred for working a half share. He had not registered abandonment of the half share. He was a baker carrying on business in Pollen atreefc. He was not able to carry on any longer for himself, but did so fpr Soppet, a miller. He had not brought hia books with him. He kept a day book. His own name was over the door. He made the bills out in his own name. I He had no wages but a percentage. Soppet had a bill of sale over the property,! and witness was paying him off. The! bill of sale was executed about nine months back, covering all the property he had in his posiession—horse, cart and everything. Had paid nothing on account of that bill of sale except interest. It was to run for two years, and the interest was payable yearly. Had paid money to Soppct since but it was for flour. Witness received the proceeds of the business when there was anything there. Received about £9 on Monday, and paid it away yesterday for flour. About £9 or £10 would be the weekly average. Paid £15 for flour last week. Might have a bag or two of flour left. Witness had never made any offer to settle the matter with, plaintiff. Sa dto Mr Dodd that he would pay os a week. Never said he would sell his horse and cart. Had no other property but his business—no mining scrip. He had five children and a wife, and he supported them. He didn't know whether his wife had a protection ordSfc— he didu't know anything about it. ~ ' Cross-examined by the Court—His expenses were about £9 a week. For his household expenses he took £3 a week. Then £2 for a man, 10s for a boy and 25a wear and tear. Then he had to pay about £13 for a ton of flour. Had offered through Mr Dodd to pay 5s a week. He gave his wife £3. He knew nothing of a protection order. John Ellers Dodd, solicitor, residing in Shortland deposed—That he was attorney for plaintiff in the action when this judgment was obtained and subsequently. Had communication with Babe repeatedly. Asked him about settlement and he promised if left over for a fortnight he would pay in full. This would be-about 6 weeks ago. Subsequently he offered 2s 6d a week and witness laughed at him. Witness said if defendant would pay half cash down and 10s a week he would accept. Then defendant offered 5s a week and afterwards 10s, but witness believed he had the money to pay the debt in full and he would not accept. Witness got a protection order for Mrs Babe in .that Court, signed by Captain Fraser. Defendant was perfectly cognizant of it. It was granted on the ground of cruelty. Mrs Babe told witness that she had full charge of the front shop, and had to pay for every biscuit an 4 cake she had, and Babe got the proceeds. He (witness) was convinced that defendant had the money to pay. Mr Campbell submitted that this was an attempt to evade a just debt, and that His Worship should make a peremptory order. Defendant had said what was palpably untrue.

His Worship said perhaps defendant was laboring under some disadvantage - being a foreigner, but lie must bare

understood the nature of the document which, brought him here,,and, as a tradesman, he should vhave come prepared to give satisfactory information as to the state of his flffairg. 1 his he had not done, while he had further shown a carelessness in giving his evidence amounting to disrespect. Judgment would be for payment of the amount, including costs of this day's hearing, tdtal £8 Is, by two equal instalments, half on next Court day and remainder on the following Court day. The alternative he would leave to the presiding magistrate in case the money was not paid. '

TIMOTHY BUCKLEY ,V. PATBICK HEN^ESSY. Claim £2 16s 9d. Plaintiff did not appear. Defendant was examined as to particulars of the judgment, which was obtained in 1873. He said he was not able to pay the amount. He averaged about £2 a week earnings. He could pay 2s 6d a week. The Court made an order for 5s a week, first payment on next Monday, or in default 14 days' imprisoning. "- '

At the conclusion of the civil business —in the case Wingato versus Wingate, Mr Macdonald said he had succeeded in getting the parties to come to an understanding and he would ask leave of the Court to withdraw the cae and offer no evidence. The Court had no objection, and the case was struck out.

Court adjourned.