RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2164, 10 December 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAY. (Before W. Fraser, Esq., E.M.) CIVIL SIDE. WILKINSON ANI> HOBTON T. "WINDSOB CASTLE & M.CO. ■"•■•■■. This was a claim of £9 Sis for advertising. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount claimed, and costs £1 9s. SAME V. Wll^lAaf, PEIJPIVAE. Claim £2 18s for'advertising. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount claimed and costs £1.

JOHN BAFFEBTY V. BIKI PAKA. Claim of £15on a dishonored promissory noteMr Dodd for plaintiff; no appearance of defendant. Eiki Paka made his appearance in Court after plaintiff had given his evidence, and on beiug asked by the Magistrate if he owed the money he said " Ten-a-poun." He, however, admitted the signature to the P.N. to be his. Judgment for amount claimed and £2 2s costs. THOMAS GLENN V. CATHEBINE GLEESON. Claim for £20 on detinue. Plaintiff appeared, but asked for an adjournment as she had no money to pay the hearing fee. Defendant did not appear. Adjourned till next Court day, 17th December. edwabd thomas wildman v. b.b. m'gbesob. Claim £11 money due and owing. Mr Macdonald for plaintiff asked for an adjournment in consequence of his client's illness. Defendant had no objection and the case was adjourned till 7th January. ALEXANDER HOGG V. SAMUEL BEIBENHAM. Claim of £5 for rent of a blacksmith's shop at Paeroa, Okinemuri. Mr Bras sey for plaintiff stated the case. It appeared that on a former occasion, in which plaintiff had sued defendant, it was agreed that everything in the blacksmith's shop should be Mr Hogg's, and that the .rent should be 5s per week. On defendant leaving the shop he moved some bricks, and, it was alleged, did some damage to the blacksmith's shop. Defendant stated that the bricks he moved were not included in the articles referred to in the agreement. He put up the bricks to protect the bellows from the fire.

His Worship, after some conversation with counsel for plaintiff and Mr Macdonald with a view to a settlement of the case, considered that the claim was good —it was only a question of amount. With this view Brisenham was examined. He said the bricks cost him 6s and he put up the work in about an hour anil a half. Judgment for 15s, and costs £110s. TOWXSEND V. GUDGEON.

This was a case heard last Court day, in which there was a dispute for an amount of 30s claimed by defendant as a set off, but which was given in favor of plaintiff. A rehearing was applied for and granted. Mr Macdonald now stated that he had endeavored to effect a settlement of this case and had succeeded. He had represented to plaintiff and defendant that as the case stood, and with the evidence given, it looked as if one of them had not spoken the truth, but he (Mr Macdonald) was conviuced that it; was only the result of a misunderstanding, and he had advised both gentlemen to come to a settlement.; This had been agreed to, and, with the Bench's permission, the case would be withdrawn. Case struck out by consent. THE APPEAL CASES.. The Imperial Crown Goldmining Company, Kuranui Goldmining Company and Manukau Goldmining Company appeals against the Borough assessment were, by consent, allowed to stand over till the Court day on the 7th January.

OTHEB APPEALS ADJOUKNED. In the cases of the Moanatairi, Herald and Waiotahi Goldmining Companies, previously before the Court, there was some question as to whether they could be entertained, in consequence of the necessary notices not (it was alleged) having been given in lime. Mr Tyler now stated that he had looked into authorities, and had come to the conclusion that they were in time, and' they could be allowed to stan-l over till the same time as the others. Adjourned till 7th January. BOEOUGH APPEAL AGAINST THE PAEAWAI HIGHWAY ASSESSMENT. In this case the assessment had been reduced by agreement from £90 to £40, and the only point was on the question of costs, which counsel agreed to leave to the Court. It appeared to be a question whether one guinea or two should be given. The Court awarded £2 15s costs. OTHEB CASES ADJOURNED. The cases of Edward Beere, John Andrews, and Arthur Bedford, appeals against the Parawai Highway Assessment, were adjourned till the 17th instant. LEOPOLD LESSONG V. GBO. SAMUEL GEAHiM.

Claim of £15 15s for work and labor done, namely survey of a mining lease and making a plan of it. Mr Macdonald for plaintiff, and Mr Tyler for defendant. George Samuel Graham, deposed—That he was an agent carrying on business in Auckland, and defendant in that action. He had received a letter asking for payment of this money. He didn't pay it because he did noffowe it; it was a company's debt—the Tairua Company's. Cross-examined by M r Tyler—-Witness originally employed Mr Lessong to do the work, and he was then acting as secretary for the company. He had receired an intimation from the Warden's Office that there was an error. Told that to Mr Lessong and asked him to go up and rectify it in time for the Warden's Court. Told him to see Mr McLaren about the error, lie asked what would be the oost, and Mr Lessong said £15. Thought it too much, but as time was an" object witness agreed to give it. Witness was then acting as secretary for the company, and held money of the company's from which he would pay plaintiff. His Worship suggested that. counsel should settle the question whether plaintiff was employed by defendant or by the company. Ke-examined by Mr Macdonald—There was a telegram from witness' brother, and it was upon that telegram Mr Lessong was employed to complete the surrey/ It was after that telegram witness gave him final instructions to go and make the survey. It was quite optional with William Graham to come and rectify the error, but he was in Wai kato, and witness employed Lessong. William Graham had made a plan and submitted it to the Government Ofgcer, that plan was defective, and it was necessary ta spud sQtne one to correct it. If William Graham had been there he "would probably have' been sent to make the correct plan. Witness could not say if William Graham had ever been paid for hjs survey. Witness was honorary secretary at the time. LeopoldLessong, sworn, depose4—That he was a surveyor carrying on business in this locality. Knew Mr G. S. Grar ham. Made a plau of the Tairua Corn-

pany g property at Tairua. Made a survey and furnished a plan. Charged 15 guineas. It was a reasonable charge. The instructions for that plan were entirely through Mr G. S. Graham. Wit. .» ness had been at Tairua surveying another lease, and he found out a miltake in Mr William Graham's survey. Met Mr G. S. Graham and" told him about his brother's mistake. They went together to the Telegraph Office and he asked witness to telegraph to his brother what the mistake was, as he could express it better. He did io. A day or two after Mr Graham came to witness' office and showed witness a' telegram. He said go up at once and survey the Tairua Company's ground. He asked witness the charge, and witness »* i 5 Suiheas- He did so, and furnished Mr Graham with the plan. Afterwards witness made application to the Tairua Company for payment, and then applied to Mr G. S Graham for payment; Mr trranam said he was not indebted, through his solicitor. °

Cross-examined by Mr Tyler—•"Vgfe.i ness was not at that time a shareholdeP of the Tairua Company. Knew Mr Graham was a shareholder but not that he was secretary. Heard what Mr Graham said about payment. To the best of his belief that was not said at the time. Knew at the time that the ground was the Tairua's, and that there was a dispute. Mr Graham asked witness to make a sketch of Bergin's. Wit* ness agreed to make a survey and plan for £15 15s. After a. conversation with Mr Graham witness sent in his claim to the Company. If employed by the mana- >■ ger witness would send in his account 4o the company. That was why he sent in his account to the • airua Company. This was plaintiff's case. Mr Tyler apprehended there were two points on which plaintiff would be not* suited. Plaintiff sued in an ordinary wat for work done, and tried to prove a special contract, and secondly the evidence went to prove that Mr Lessong knew very well that he was employed by Mr Graham as agent for the company, and not by Mr Graham on his own responsibility. Mr Macdonald replied, and quoted authorities.

After some discussion relative to points of a nonsuit, Mr Tyler called— Mr Gr. S. Graham, who said—l was not asked while I was secretary to pay Mr Lessong. Mr Lessong never gave me the plan. Ido not recollect ever having had it in my possession. Mr Brassey was acting as solicitor for the company at that time. There was some litigation going on in the Warden's Court at the time I made this arrangement with Mr Lessong. By Mr Macdonald—l believe I told all about the matter. I have already said in reference to the matter that I told Mr Lessong I would pay him out of money I had belonging to the company. • Mr Lessong was called, but his evidence as regards the plans, was objected to as inadmissible, as it was not pertinent to the defence set up. The Court ruled that Mr Tyler could proceed.. Mr Lessong continued—l would not be sure who brought the plan (produced) to me. Mr Graham spoke to me about a peg marked on the plan. (Further evidence was taken relative to the plans prepared by Mr Lessong, which were produced in Court.) Willoughby Brassey said—ln the month of May last I was acting as lolicitor to the Tairua Goldmining Com* pany, Limited. I remember going to Mr Lessong, and telling him that there was a fifth peg shown on the plan which was not on the ground. He said there was a peg there marking another piece of ground, but he could easily correct it by making the line a straight line. I told him that the plan would not do fbr the circumstances of the case then pending, and another on© was made.

James McLaren, District Engineer said—All plans connected with the Warden's Court pass through my hands and from these plans a compiled plan of the district is made. There is a difference of about 10 degrees in the angle of the lower line of the plan produced. I believe Mr Lessong came to the office and saw my assistant. The other plan is an amended plan. Another discussion here arose, and the Court ruled that the second plan had nothing to do with the merits of the case, having been made at a suggestion of the solicitor to the Tairua Company. D. H. Bayldon also gave evidence of a technical character relative to a plan made by himself and another plan {produced. This was the case for the defence. Mr Tyler contended the work -was done I for the Tairua Company, and therefore Mr Graham was not the person who ought to be sued, and further that the plan was useless for the purposes "required. ' Mr Macdonald having replied on the whole case — : '..-.,.. His Worship then gave judgment, saying at the same lime that it was an unsatisfactory case, as Mr Graham had not been sufficiently explicit, but the plan had been made out for Mr Neves and Mr Graham, and as regards to th^^pnyctv ness of the plan there was no evMMte(H& show that it was not correct in .accordance with the pegs shown to Mr Lessong. Judgment for plaintiff with costs £3 2s. [Left sitting.]