DISTRICT COURT.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XXXIII, Issue 11279, 28 May 1891, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

Wednesday, Mat 27th. (tiefore his Honor, District Judge Kettle.) P. J. Pringle, deceased. On "the application of Mr Borlase, probate was granted to J. D. Tripe and John S. McLaren, the executors named in the will. ; r,, Martha Jackson, deceased. Probate granted to John Jackson, executor named in the will. Mr Burnett for applicant. In re the "Wanganui Equitable Land Building and Investment Society. Petition by Thomas Bamber to have the society wound up. Mr Borlase appeared for the petitioner. Next sittings of the Court fixed for hearing petition, to be duly advertised in the meantime. On application of Mr Borlase, lette s of administration were granted in estatos of William Kells and Joseph Koonast, and on application of Mr Cooke in estate of James Welsh, deceased. Coupe v. Bourne. Mr Jellicoe, instructed by Mr Llyod, appeared for the appellant, and Mr Hogg for the respondent. This was an appeal against the ( decision of the E.M. adjudging that the appellant in this case was the putative father of the illegitimate child of the respondent;, and making an order for the maintenance of the child. The appeal was made on the ground that the decision was given against the weight of evidence, also that the respondent's evidence was not corroborated. After hearing the evidence of the respondent and Mrs Wooley, and the arguments of counsel, his Honor said that on the legal points raised (not on the merits of the case) he would uphold the appeal, and therefore reverse the order made by the Eesident Magistrate. Caiman t. Belcher, claim J847 2s 9d. Mr Fitzherbert for the plaintiff, and Mr Hogpr for the defendant. Plaintiff and defendant shipped produced to Australia in partnership. The venture resulted in a loss, and this action was brought to recover the balance alleged to be due by the defendant for his share of the expenses. The defence was — Ist A denial of the correctness of the items set forth in the plaintiff's statement of claim, and 2nd An allegation that the defendant was induced to enter into the partnership by fraud on the part of the plaintiff. A jury or four was sworn. Mr Fitzherbert raised a preliminary objection against the second defence, contending that, as the defendant had admitted the partnership, he was not excused from contribution even if he had been induced to enter into by fraud, but that his proper remedy was an action to rescind the contract or for damages. Mr Hogg, in reply, argued that the defence of fraud was admissible, if the defendant had repudiated the contract as soon as he discovered the fraud, which he maintained that he had done in this case. . His Honor said that it was clear that the Court could not do complete justice between the parties on this question, and it was to the interest of the defendant himself to have it excluded. It was desirable, if possible, to reduce the question of fraud to one trial, and a decision on it .in this case might prejudice any future action in which it came up. The plea of fraud was therefore struck out. Mr Fitzherbert then briefly addressed the jury, and called the plaintiff, who swore that he actually paid the amounts set forth in his statement of claim ; that he handed a paper (produced) containing particulars of such payments to the defendant before the vessel sailed ; and that the defendant kept it for seven days, and returned it without any remark, Mr Hogg said that it was impossible for him to attteinpt to prove the incorrectness of the items in the plaintiff's acconnt without going into the question of fraud. His Honor said that the items could be disputed without- anything being said about fraud. Mr Hogg, however, declined to go on with the case. His Honor, therefore, directed the jury that if they belioved the plaintiff's evidence they must return a verdict for him for the amount claimed, which they accordingly did without leaving the box. After some little discussion between his Honor and counsel, it was arranged that judgment should be suspended till the hearing of the defendant's cross-ac-tion against the plaintiff, which was fixed for the 17th June next. The jury was then dismissed. * The following applications for discharge of bankrupts were dealt with : — James King — Mr Burnett appeared for tte bankrupt. This application had been adjourned from the previous sitting to enable the bankrupt to file certain documents. Application again adjourned, in , order that further information might ho obtained with regard to a sum of J3200, alleged to have been stolen from the bankrupt. F. W. Hackett— Mi Hogg for the bankrupt. Discharge refused. Arthur Braithwaite — Applicaiion adjourned for further information regarding an alleged preferential payment. The Deputy Official Assignee applied for an order of release in several cases, which was granted. The Court was then adjourned till the 17th June next, at 10 o'clock.