RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume XVI, Issue 5106, 29 May 1885, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAY.

(Before H. Kenrick. Esq., R.M.)

CIVIL SIDE. Judgement Summonses.

Forgie v. Hikori.—Claim, £3 3s 7d, for goods.—The case was adjourned for twelve weeks to enable defendant to pass some land through the Court and thus give him means to satisfy the judgment. Undefended Qases. Gellion v. Thorp.—Claim, £57 10s 6d, for a dishonored promissory note. —Mr Miller appeared for the plaintiff, Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed, and costs, £3 19s 6d., Depended Cases. ' Gellion v. Shaw.—Claim £12 15s lOd, cash lent. Mr Miller appeared for plaintiff. —D. 11. Gellion deposed to having had share transactions with defendant, and held shares for him; before selling tbe shares in 1881 made advances on account of Mr Shaw to one Kelly, of Paeroa, to the amount of £10—could not subsequently dispose of Shaw's shares as they would not float. Applied to Shaw for the amount, and he had promised to pay it.— To defendant: You did not make a personal application to me for the money, but wrote asking Kolly to get an advance on the shares.—T. E. Shaw, sworn, stated that he had, in 1881, entered into an agreement with Col. Fraser to take up a piece of ground. Col, Fraser gave him pome names of shareholders which tbe

latter undertook to become responsible for. The order Shaw #aye Kelly to get the £10, was on Col. Fraser and he meant the amount to come out of the sale of shares, never wrote to Mr Gellion to advance £10 on his account. Did not write to Fraser to get Gellion to pay Kelly £10; Kelly got the £10, but it , was to have been paid out of the aale 6X 1 the shares, some of which he knew had been disposed of to the extent of £60, and the money must have beon in hand when telly presented the order. An amount of £10 was owing Mr Gellion partly by defendant and partly by Col. • Fraser. Plaintiff was nonsuited.

Dick v. Butcher.—Claim £10 17s 91, for work and labor done. Mr Miller for .plaintiff, and Mr Lush for defendant. — The ease was previously before the Court, when plaintiff was nonsuited; having ob-« tamed further evidence, he now brought the case into Court again. —Thomas Dick i swore that about 12 months ago defendI ant and a man named Smith called on him, and asked if he would do some ironwork for a carf; there were in the shop, plain* tiff, defendant, Smith, and Dick's boy. Butcher, when there, said that Smith was to build the body of the cart, and asked witness if he had any springs, and he replied yes, and showed him a pair, when plaintiff said they were rather too heavy, and he would like a lighter and cheaper pair. Showed him a patent axle for 30s, but he said hn wanted a cheaper one; he was then shown an American axle, and subsequently agreed to.take it. He told' Butcher he could not give him a price for the whole of the work for the cart till it was finished. Witness was to do the iron work, Smith to build the body, and J. Read was to supply the timber, Agreed to take some bacon in part payment. Got the work done as quickly as possible, and sent it down to the wheelwright. Butcher owes* a balance of £10 17s 9d for the work done. Smith gave plaintiff no order, and he did not know him in the matter; the work was done for Butcher. When the case was heard last, Dick's boy was away at Mercury Bay, but he would call him today. Had taken some bacon from butcher in part payment for the work.—To Mr Lush: went to Smith's shop to measure the body of the cart for the ironwork. He and Smith had built a cart between them and he (Dick) had sold it and retained the money. Smith owes witness £'d on other accounts. Had found the ironwork in other cases where Smith had to build the body of a cart—Wm. McCoid a former employe of the plaintiff deposed that he had been for sometime employed at Mercury Bay, returned to Thames a fort* night ago, and was sub-poenaed in this case. About twelve months ago saw Butcher and Smith in Dick's shop, they went to see about some mountings for a spring cart being built in Smith s shop. Butcher looked at some springs, and said they were too heavy; he selected an axle. Smith had nothing to do with the order given. Butcher called some time after, and promised to let Dick have some money ; the defendant brought somebacon to the plaintiff. Aoy work he did for the cart he entered against Butcher. —This closed the plaintiff's case.—John Butcher, the defendant, deposed that he went to Dick's forge with Smith to see a pair of wheels, which Smith wanted to fulfil a contract with witness to build a cart (the agreement to this effect was put in as evidence); the agreement was signed before they went to Dick's shop. Arranged with Smith to build the cart some weeks before he went with the latter to the plaintiff's shop. Smith asked if the wheels would do, and witness said ho thought so. Did not order the ironwork from Dick, and had nothing to do with him. Delivered the bacon to Dick on account of Smith, and acting on his iv* structions. Never agreed to pay Dick £10 received on account of a relative's death ; became responsible to J. Read on Smith's account for the timber required for the cart. The springs put by Smith in the cart were faulty, and the ironwork was not fit to be turned out by a shop.—To Mr Miller: Didn't think he said during the hearing of the case previously, that the agreement was signed after going to Dick's shop. Spoke about the ironwork in a generally conversational way in Dick's shop, but it was on Smith's account. Took the ham and bacon to Dick's at Smith's request. Heard Smith tell Dick that he (Smith) had agreed to make a cart for witness. Dick never asked witness for payment of the acoount until he got a demand through Mr Miller. —James Smith, wheelwright, sworn, stated that he had built a cart for Mr Butcher under an agreement for £15—the agreement was signed some time last year, after he went to Dick's shop with Butcher; he thought on the same day. Considered he owes Dick for the ironwork, and he did not settle with him for-it, as there were accounts in dispute between them on account of building another cart, which Dick raffled and witness owned the woodwork of. Dick owed him money on account of the cart which he raffled. Told Butcher to let Dick have some bacon, and charge him (Smith) with it against the cart. Took delivery from Dick of the ironwork, the orders were given at different times for it. Dick had aaked him (Smith) for tho money for the ironwork on Butcher's cart several times, and he had replied that he would pay for it as soon as Dick settled for the cart he had raffled.—T. Dick, recalled, stated that he had never asked Smith for the payment of the iron on Butcher's cart, but had asked him to settle another account of over £12 owing. —Each side's solicitor addressed the Bench, pointing out the discrepancies in the various statements of the witnesses.' —The Bench at length reviewed the evidence given, and held that the balance was in favor of the plaintiff.—Judgment was given for the amount claimed with costs £7 4s.

Mrs E. Eraser v. F. Lipsey.—Claim, £19, for ejectment and rent.—Mr Miller for tbe plaintiff 1; Mr Lush for the defendant.—Mr F. Lipsey, being sworn, deposed he knew Constable Law, who served him with a notice to quit (pro* duced).—Col. W. Fraser, sworn: Was the husband of plaintiff. The block marked 119 on the plan (produced) belonged to^ her. Purchased it in Mr McDonald's name some years ago, but on his leaving the Thames it was transferred to Mrs';Fraser. Permission was given by him to Mr Lipsey to reside on the land, which he considered was worth 10s a week. Defendant is still in occupation of the land and has not paid any rent. £19, rent for 48 weeks is still due to plaintiff. Judgment was obtained some months ago for over £40, none of which had yet been paid. The notice to quit bore his wife's signature. Defendant had no claim what* ever on the land, Defendant was in the Paeroa Hotel, and on leafing it he (witness) gave Mr Lipsey permis-

oion to occupy it. The land was purchased some 8 years ago from the natifes by Mr Mackay for £870. Mr Lipsey did not contribute anything towards the purchase of the land; bis wife supplied all the money. Mr McDonald held the land as trustee for Mrs Fraser. Was transferred to Mrs Fraser under the Land Transfer Act. Never knew that Mr Lipsey claimed a share* in the land. Lipsey and witness wer» in partnership when he gave permission to him to occupy, but he had not paid anything towards improvements. Mr O'Halloran built the cottage and fences on the land, j and lived in the house for some two years, j when Mrs Fraser purchased it from him. I The partnership was for three years, and ! was dissolved at the end of that .time,—. F. Lipsey, recalled, stated he was in occupation of the disputed land. He and Mr Mackay negotiated for the purchase of the land from the natives. Paid a portion of the purchase money for the land, and always had an interest in it. Mackay was also to have a share in it, and Col. Fraser. Got possession from natives. Was a consenting party to it being trans ferred to Mr McDonald as a trustee. Noth*H§'was done without his sanction. He had since heard that it was transferred to Mrs Fraser. Claimed to have a share in it, having paid a portion of the purchase money. Intended to prosecute his claim in the Supreme Court. It was understood that he was to have a share ; Col. Fraser was asked to'come in. Had done improvements tin it—fencing, draining, &c—-To Mr Miller : Would prosecute his claim in the Supreme Court when he was ready. Was present at the sale of the land, and gave his permission to have it cut up in allotments, but did not receive any money for his share. Asked for his share from Col. Fraser, who never disputed his claim until today. Had partnership accounts with him, but not in this matter. Claimed to be a partner in the land with Col. Fraser—not Mrs Fraser. A day was appointed to settle up the partnership, but the matter was never settled up altogether, owing to Col. Fraser being suddenly taken ill while at lunch. It was true that he had given defendant two promissory notes. He had nothing to show that he had paid anything for the land. —By the Bench : All the interest in_the land was bought direct from the natives in Mr McDonald's name. Never had anything in writing ; it was simply a verbal agreement. Was very ill at the time judgment was given against him, and he telegraphed down to that effect, but the telegram was received too late.—Mr Lush contended that the Court had no jurisdiction in the matter, and on this ground the case should be dimissed. — His Worship said he thought defendant's remedy was against Mr McDonald. He would order that pos* session be given'up by defendant on or before the 9th August, and judgment would be given for the amount claimed (£l9) with costs £2 Is. Court then adjourned. Adjoubhed Case. Baggott v. Waitoa Eoad District.— Claim, £30, for trespass.—Mr Lush, for the defendant, asked for an adjournment for a reasonable time, as considerable evidence was required ; he further asked that the case bo heard at Te Aroha, as a number of witnesses would have to be brought from Cambridge.—Mr Miller, who appeared for the plaintiff, objected to the change of venue; if the defendant company wished they could have their witnesses evidence taken at Te Aroba or Cambridge, but he saw no reason why the plaintiff should bo brought to Te Aroha. —Adjourned for a fortnight, the case to be heard at Thames.