R.M. COURT.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XXXIII, Issue 11696, 22 July 1890, Page 3

R.M. COURT.

♦ Monday, Jtrtr 21st. (Before W. H. Brabant, 'Esq., K.M.) TJNCONTESTED CASES. E. J. Chapman v. Karma. Case settled out of Court Hyger v.'Cohen; Case adjourned fora' fortnight on application of plaintiff. Bendell, Watson, and Co. v. A. Fretyberg, Mr Bendell explained that defendant had paid the amount into Court, and would ask for costs only. Judgment given for costs, 275. ' W. H. James v. Kobert Gilmer, claim £3 12s 6d. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs 7a. DEFENDED CASES. Dr J. D. Tripe v. George McCaul, claim £53 11s 2d. Mr Marshall appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Cooke for the defendant. This case was brought by Dr Tripe to recover the amount on a dishonoured promissory note. Dr Tripe had a claim on the Churten estate for medical attendance of jE276. Mr McCaul was executor in the Churton estate and paid two cheques to Dr Tripe of .£l2O and .£2O. This left a balance of about 4130, to cover which Mr McCaul gave a promissory note privately for J!75, and made special arrangements for the balance. This was done in order to allow Mr McCaul to file accounts in the estate, which then had shortly to be done. It appears that Mr JNotman, as receiver in the Churton Estate, had paid Mr McCaul the X275, full amount of Dr Tripe's claim at that time, and it was this that caused him to- bring the action. — Mr Marshall, in his opening address, said he would try to show that there -was fraud in this transaction on McCaul's part, he (McCaul) stating to Dr Tripe at that time that he had not the funds to meet his claim, whereas he had been paid the whole amount by Mr Notmanto pay Dr Tripe. The promissory note had been dishonoured several times, and now McCaul was totally unable to meet it. — Dr Tripe stated, in his evidence, that he took this promissory note from McCaul, believing that ho could not meet his claim by cash, but had he known that McCaul had had the money he would not have done so.— Mr Cooke, in addressing the Bench, said he would submit that there was no fraud, either directly or indirectly, on McCaul's part. 'Dr Tripe had entirely ignored the Churton . Estate, taken McCaul's promissory note for the amount, and looked to McCaul aa his paymaster. There was an understanding that the promissory n«te should be paid when tho estate wps settled, and this is borne out by the fact that the promissorynote had been renewed several times. The estate had not been settled yet, nor was it likely to be for some time. McCaul had said he was willing to pay if he could, but was not able.— His Worship said he did not think there was any fraud shown between the parties in this action, but the accounts had been kept in a very improper way, and it was this that suggfsted fraud.— On the application of Mr Marshall, the case was adjourned for a week.