CIVIL SIDE.

Thames Star, Volume X, Issue 3124, 21 February 1879, Page 2

CIVIL SIDE.

Judgments fob Plaiktiffs. In the following cases judgment was given with costs.—L. Ehrenfried v. J. N. Owen (of Wellington).—Claim, £33 15s, beer, and costs £5 12s. Fisher and Co. v. J. McGeehan.—Claim, £21 17s Bd, goods, and costs £4,25. F. Hewin and Bro. v. Barnett.—Claim, £2.7s 7d, goods, and costs 11s. Same v. John Brown.— Claim, £2 19s, goods, and costs 12s. Watchman G.M.Co. v. Pitkethley.— Claim, £4 5s 6d, calls, and costs £2 6s. William Wilson and Co. v. Hope.—Claim, £1 Os 6d, and costs 15s. Aobt. Higgins v. Lawrence.—Claim, £4 5s Id, goods, and costs Us.

Judgment Summons, c. chablton v. bubmingham. Claim, £7125.

Mr Miller for plaintiff; defendant did not appear. Order made that defendant pay 5s per week, failing any payment to undergo 14 days'imprisonment. Defended Cases. a. Fleming (collectob of bobough hates) v. jj. ehbenfbied. Claim, £2 ss, rates. Mr Miller, for defendant, said that the defence was that defendant was neither owner nor occupier, nor was he at the time the valuation list was made. . Mr Dean (Town Clerk) said that the defendant was raising a defence going behind the Assessment Court. He quoted i from the Municipal Corporations Act, and argued that the decision of the Assessment Court was final. Mr Ehienfried had brought it before that Court, and it had been dismissed. This was quite a friendly action, but on a principle of considerable importance to the Borough. As a simple matter of fact he believed that Mr Ehrenfried really was not the owner of the property. He argued that Sec. 34 showed that the decision of the Assessment Court was final, and Mr Ehrenfried could not now alter that decision, or raise any question behind that; therefore, he contended, the Valuation 801 l could not be objected to or altered by the Court. If the E.M. Court could alter the roll or set it aside, it would not leave the decision of the Assessment Court final.

Mr Miller submitted that his client was not the owner and occupier of the property he was rated for. He was not the Louis Ehrenfried put down as the owner of the property.

The Court here adjourned till 2 o'clock.

On resuming at 2 o'clock— ; Mr Dean said that the case was for the recovery of a raie from Mr L. Ehrenfried, which was placed opposite hi* name in the rate book. Ho drew attention of Bench to 44th section of Eating Act, which provided that the rate book, having been signed by three Councillors and | sealed with the Borough seal, could not be objected to. He also stated the only circumstances under which there could be an appeal against the rate book, viz, on any of the causes named in the fourth sub-section of the 42nd clause of the Bating Act. He submitted that if he proved that the L. Ehrenfried in the rate book was the same L. Ehrenfried as in the Valuation 801 l for the property in question, the Bate Book was incontrorertable evidence that the defendant was liable for the rate. He put in Gazette proclaiming the Thames a Borough, also the rate book signed and sealed, also the Assessment List.

Mr Miller said he did not admit anything referring to the Bate Book. Andrew Fleming, sworn, deposed—l am Kate Collector for Borough of Thames, and also I am Borough valuer, and made the Valuation 801 l signed by the Judge of the Assessment Court. L. Ehrenfried's name appeared in the Assessment List for the property in question—allotment and three shops, Brown street, valued at £45. L. Ehrenfried's name ia under the beading " occupier." The Mr L. Ehrenfried now in the Court is the same person named in the second column of the Valuation List. I produce the Ratebook. Defendant is here rated for allotment and three shops, Brown street, rateable value £45—rate, Is in the £, £2 ss. The Ratebook is signed and sealed by the Mayor and three Council* lors. Demand has been made for the rate which is still duo and owing. By Mr Miller—The Valuation List wag

handed over to the Council in January, '78. It was partly compiled in December, '77, and January, '78. This concluded the plaintiff's case. Mr Miller said that the object of section 44 was to make the proof of liability simpler, but if he could prove that Mr Enrenfried was neither owner or occupier at the time of the compilation of the List, he submitted the defendant must succeed under the words "unless it be otherwise proved," in sections 44 and 31 of the Eating Act. Louis Ehrenfried, sworn, deposed—l am the defendant. I am neither the owner or occupier of the property in question, nor was I at the time of the compilation of the Assessment List. Mr Dean submitted that the question could not be admitted, as the defendant could not go past the rate book, and the question put by counsel went b?hind the Kate Book to the Valuation Roll.

Mr Miller said if he could prove to the contrary, the rate book could not be taken as evidence. The plrintiff would have then to prove the rate by some other means. ; .

Mr Dean submitted that the decision of the Assessment Court war final. The R.M. Court could not upset the decision of the Assessment Court. It wm not admissable to go back on the Valuation or Assessment 8011. The words " unless the contrary be proved," did not apply to the question. Examination continued—l am neither owner or occupier, for which I am rated and for which I am ined, nor was I in Pec. '77, or January '78. On that ground I decline to pay this rate. : ' ■''■' [ ; i | Mr Miller said that concluded the case. He submitted that the contrary had been proved. ■■■■-■■■■ ■'■-'" i 'j-rVO, His Worship said he would reserve judgment. FOBS T. OBICX. t - Claim, £50, trover. :: * Mr Dodd for defendant; Mr Miller for plaintiff. John Fois, sworn, deposed—l am a butcher at Auckland. I know Orme./ I let him my premises in Brown street. There was sausage machinery on the premises. I did not let it with the premises. In letting the house I reserved to myself the right of removing the machinery and substituting for it one I had in Auckland. I required two days; to do it in. Mr W. McDowell was present at the time this agreement was made, for the purpose of witnessing it. The agreement was not in writing. I purchased the machinery from Messenger 11 years ago. No special was made of the "filler," but it is part of the machinery. The "filler" is necessary for production of sausagei. I have been working with sausage machinery since I was 12 years old. On the first Tuesday* of February .1 se)it my man to take the machinery down, but Mr Orme made some objection. I consequently went, to- see Mr Orme, and he agreed to let me taka down the machinery if I would let him chop " two blocks of Germans." I again sent the man to take down the machinery. Saw defendant again in an hotel; we had further conversation about the machinery, and he said the " filler " was not partbf the machinery, and he would not let me move the "filler" on la'ay conditions. The machinery is worth £50. When I leased the shop, and when the reservation was made, only machinery was mentioned. The "filler" was not mentioned. There is also_ a water engine on the premises, but it is not part of the machinery. By Mr Dodd—The sausage machine is worth £50. It cost me £35, and* some six years ago I was offered £50 for it. I did not promise to erect the new machinery before I removed the machinery in question. I told Orme that the machine I had in Auckland would not make so many sausages as the one I 'had at the Thames. I might have threatened to go through the Court when Andrews sued me. It was on the agreement that he was to suffer the two days' detention. By Mr Miller—There was no alterateration in the agreement after McDowell left.

William McDowell, sworn, deposed— I am a hotel and restaurant keeper in Grahamstown. I was palled by Mr Fobs to hear the arrangement made betweoa Mr Foss and Orme. I beard it agreed that Foss was to take down the machinery and replace it in two days' time. .■ By Mr Dodd—l did not hear anything more about the sausage machinery. . • ■ Joseph Vesey, sworn, deposed—l am agasfitterby trade. At the end of last month I was engaged by Mr Foss to remove some machinery, which Mr Orme would not permit me to do. Mr Dodd said he admitted that the defendant had refused to allow the machinery to be removed, and also that the filler was part of the machinery. Daniel Orme, sworn, deposed—l am a butcher, and know the machinery in dispute. I remember the- 31st of January, when I took possession from Mr .Foss pC certain butchery premises. Mr Bogers was present at Mr McDowell's restiurant when the agreement was made. Mir McDowell was not present all the time. With regard to the sausage machine Foss said he wanted to move it, which I agreed to, and he promised to send me down a good one from Auckland, and would not move the machinery until the othe^came down. I will give him the maehitffy whenever he fulfils his part of the agreement. Mr Boers was having his breakfast at the time the agreement was made, but Mr McDowell was called in with, refe* renoe to the rent of the premises. It would be impossible to take the machine down in two days and send it to .Auckland. „.,;'■

Edward Bogers gave corroborative evidence concerning the making of the contract. ..

Some further unimportant evidence having been heard, His Worship nonsuited plaintiff: costs, £5 ss. Court adjourned. 'f