DISTRICT COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume XII, Issue 505, 26 February 1879, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before His Honor Judge Harvey.) Monday, 24th February, 1879. Mr Webb applied for an order of discharge for Charles Nicholson. Mr Copland was about to object. on*behalf of William Waugh, one of the creditors, but not having served the requisite notice, the objection could not be entertained. An order was then granted, and the bankrupt discharged. Allan Orr— Mr Webb applied for an order for the discbarge of thi3 bankrupt, bul the Trustee r< ported he had not lud an opport unity of examining the debtor. The Trustee stilted that some of the creditors were under the impression that some of the assets of the b inknipt had nob been set forth, and they wanted time to examine into the matter. — Adjourned, till next sitting of the Court, to give the Trustee ati opporf v u'ty of examining - bankrupt. The Trustee to give bankrupt notice if ho intends opposing. If the latter docs not receive notice he need not attend tho Court. D JH'lnlosh y. A. M'lnlosh.—G\iL\m of £120 for assault. Mr ll'Coy and with him Mr Q-ooday appeared for tho plaintiff; and Mr Howorth. and with him Mr Webb for the defendant. In this case plaintiff sued defendant his brother for the sum of £120 "for damager^j^tamed by an assault. Tho case was n^»d before a jury of four— viz., James Buch.^Tn, James Cahill, Thoani3 Barnett, and Joseph Bell. Mr M'Coy briefly opened the case, and called (ho plaintiff Duvitl M'lnto-h, who deposed that on ClirLstsnas morning hh brother the defendant cauao to his hou-o an-l assaulted bim, by throwing him on the couch and attempting to throltio him, and also bruising his body in several parts and seriously injuring his chest. To such an ex'.ent was lie injured that he was obliged to keep l-> his bed for fire days, and was unable to attend to his work for three weeks and threo days. He called in Dr Withers, who visited him on several occasions, and he losl at the rate of £5 a week while off work. On being cross-examined by Mr Howorth, he said he was not drunk on tho previous evening, but was " powerfully refreshed." Mr Howorth produced the information sworn to by plaintiff in connect ion with the case heard before the Resident Magistrate, wherein nothing is mentioned about an assault — the only thing there referred to being a charge of threatening language, whereby he feared a a breach of the peace would be committed. Dr Withers deposed that he was called on Chrisrmas morning to visit plaintiff at his liouse at the Blue Spur. Ou exuminin" him he found his throat very much scratched and slightly swollen ; his left shoulder had a bruise on it, and he had a swollen bruise on his scalp. He complained moat of his chest, as if it had been knelt upon. No rib 3 were broken. He came to the conclusion that he (plaintiff) must have been knocked about a good deal. He (witness) told him he would require to vest for a fortnight. He was in bed when he (witness) first saw him. Cross-examined by Mr Howorth : The bruise on hU head and chest may have been done on the previous night, but not the others. He thought from plaintiff's appearance that he had been drinking over night. Eliza M'lntosh (wife of plaintiff) gave evidence to t.ho effect that wheu sha heard a row going on between the two, she went into the room, and found defendant on the top of her husband. She tried to pull him off, and he lifted his foot and kicked at her, but struck the child she had in her arms on the head. She th^n ran and got hold of the broom, and made free with it. Wm. Wilkinson deposed that he saw Allan M'lntosh on Christmas morning, and asked him where he was going. Defendant replied that ho was going to Davie's to take it out of him, or get satisfaction for last night's work, or something to that effect. He would not bo certain as to tho exact words. Ho understood that he was going to h-ive a row. Witness triel to persuade him to be quiet. Cross-examined by Mr Howorth : I would not swiire that he did not say he was goiDg up for an explanation. Jno. Quick Mitchell deposed that he heard a cry of " murder " coming from the plaintiff's hous>s on Christmas morning. This closed the case for the plaintiff. Mr Howorth, after opening the case for the defence, called tho defendant Allan M'lntosh, who deposed that he went to plaintiff's liouse ou Christmas morning, and knocked at the door. Plaintiff said come in. I said what was the matter with you last night up at Grieves; you told a whole lot of men there that you were eight months out of work on my account. He said what about that. I said it took all the men there at Grieves to keep you from fighting me. I saw you were drunk, and I did not want to have any quarrel with you and I went away. He said you have come to my house now to fight me. I said I'm not talking about fighting. With that he jumped off the sofa, and nvide a run and got hold of me. I then turned round to go out, when his wife came and met me with a broom handle. I forced my way back to the room, she followed beating me. The sofa was behind me, I fell on it and he came ou top of me. He said bring -^^ knife and I'll murder the b r. She thei^^ opened the front door and went back into the kitchen. I got away outside. There were no blows struck by him or me. They were all struck by the wife. I took the broom handle from her. On the previous night he was fighting with oue Kelly. I was making peace between the two when he pitched into me. I saw Wilkinson next morning, and I told him I was going to see Davie to see what was the matter with him kst night. I saw my brother next morning (26th) outside the house. I did not speak to him. I remember the case heard before the Magistrate, when I was bound over to keep the peace. I had a cross action against my brother, but a mess was made of the summons, and it could not be heard. Cross-examined by Mr M'Coy : Wilkinson did not advise me not to go to the house. I did not go with an angry feeling. I was once before bound over to keep the peace against my brother, about three years ago. There was no fight on that occasion. [Mr M'Coy : "Only a small expression of hostility."— Defeudant : I don't understand that.— Hia Honor : " Barney" is a word more frequently used by miners, which ho will understand.] I have been on friendly terms with my. brother both before and after the first case referred to. Re-examined by Mr Howorth : I have been collecting money for my brother as late as September last. Gilbert Ralston, miner, deposed that both plaintiff and defendant were partners of his Plaintiff was working manager of the Great Extended Company. The statement made by pi lintiff that he had not been dismissed as manager of the Company owing to his quarrelsome disposition, and that he had never struck him (Ralston), were read over towitness, who said they were untrue, as he was suspended for being quarrelsome, and unable to get on with the men. Witness also swore that plaintiff struck him. He knew nothing whatever of the case now before the Court. Mr Howorth then reviewed the evidence and made an eloquent defence. It was un* fortunate, he said, that they should have come into Court to settle a dispute of this kind. He (counse 1 ) had produced one disinterested witness to oontradict the plaintiffs evidence} and he also pointed out descrepancies between the evidence of the husband and wife. One strong point, he thought, against the plaintiff was his saying nothing in the information about the assault, at the time he asked his brother to be bound over to keep the peace. His brother was now suffering from the previous action, and nvw

plaintiff claimed to obtain double satisfaction. Mr ftl'Coy briefly replied to the arguments of his learned friend, after which his Honor summed up in a very lucid manner. The Jury retired for a few minutes, and returned with a verdict for the defendant — Costs of Court, £2 8s (including the costs of the Jury) 3 one witness, 19s ; professional costs, £6. His Honor hoped the parties to the suit would manage to settle their differences in a friendly way, and not come squabbling into Court again. Robert Ledlie v. John M'Conib. — Claim of £250 for a one-eight share iv White and Co.'s Goldmining Claim at Blue Spur. Mr Howorth and Mr Webb for plaintiff ; Mr M'Coy for defendant. Plaintiff deposed that ho had an eighth share in White and Company's claim. The property comprised three goldmining 1 leases, the half of one water race, the whole of another race, and a dam used in connection with one of the races as enumerated in the deed of partnership of the company, dated 26th Oclobei',lß7o. From theevidenceof plaintiff, it appeared that he mortgaged this share to the defendant by deed dated 29th December, 1873, to secure £120 and interest. The deed of partnership and mortgage were admitted, and marked "A" and " B." Deifendant, at the time of the mortgage (29th *^pgmber, 1873) was working for the comjfKy on one of the water races, and continued in that capacity until August, 1874. At that time plaintiff came to an agreement with defendant about the sale of half his interest, in the claim. This agreement was reduced to writing. Notice to produce the agreement was given, but it was not produced. Secondary evidence was then admitted. Plaintiff had no copy of the agreement. When defendant brought the agreement to plaintiff, they both signed it. It wns an agreement to plaintiff to sell to defendant one-half of plaintiff's interest — viz,, one-sixteenth share in the partnership property for £450, payable as follows : — £100 cash in hand; the release of the mortgage money then dve — viz., £100 ; and balance in twelve months (£250.) Plaintiff applied to defendant for payment at the end of the twelve months. He said he had not any money, but would try and get £50. He did not get it. He afterwards told plaintiff that he would not pay him any more money until it came out of the claim. Plaintiff did not agree to this. He afterwards asked defendant to give him endorsed bills. He refused to do this, and had not yer paid. Defendant afterwards attended all meetings of the company as a shareholder, and voted and took part in all the transactions of the company. At the time of the sale there was no machinery on the ground. The company determined to erect machinery. All the shareholders were present. The Bank of New Zealand advanced the money. Security as a mortgage was given to tho bank. The document marked "C" is the mortgage (admitted) signed by plaintiff and defendant. The bank after wards pressed for the money. It was decided by the company to sell the property. There was a meeting of all the shareholders, including defendant, to discuss the question of sale. At the meeting three of the shareholders were appointed to negotiate the eale. They called for tenders, and eventually the propeity was sold to Mr Grieve. After paying the bank, he did not think there was any surplus. He got none. He had to pay a small call. So far as White and Co. were concerned, the company was wound up. Grieve formed a new company, taking in any of the old shareholders who wished to come in, by paying their proportion of the money he had paid for the purchase of the property. Both the defendant and plain! iff went into it. It was called the North of Ireland Company. The company is still in existence. Cross-examined : His interest in the North of Ireland Company's claim was Bold under execution. Samuel White deposed : In 1873 he held one-eighth share in the jjclaiin. Defendant was employed in the water race in August, 1874. Defendant showed him an agreement between Ledlie and M'Comb about the purchase of a share — the half of Ledlie's share. Defendant afterwards attended a meeting of the Company as a shareholder. The Company afterwards erected machinery, and gave a mortgage 'Sio the Bank of New Zealand. In 1876, the Company known as White and Co. was wound up, and a new Company was formed — viz., the North of Ireland Co. The new Company was formed of the old shareholders principally. Witness held a one-eighth share. This was subsequent to defendant's purchase. Cross-examined : Defendant told witness that it was to be conveyed free of incumbrances. Ledlie told him quite the contrary. Robert Grieve then gave evidence as lo assignment from White and Co. to the new Company. H. H. Holmden gave evidence as to having attested the Mortgage. Mr M'Coy and Mr Howorth both addressed the Court, after which his Honor summed up, and gave judgment for the plaintiff for the amount of £250, and £23 12s costs and witnesses' expenses . Defendant to execute the re-conveyance of mortgage of 29th December, 1873. fp Mr Howorth applied for immediate execution. — Order granted.