R.M. COURT.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XXXVII, Issue 11866, 17 October 1893, Page 3

R.M. COURT.

Monday, 16th Octobbb. (Before C. C. Kettle, Esq., R M ) DEFENDED CASES. In the case Couchman and Stuart v. G. D. Kirkwood, Mr Watt said that hairing ascertained that witnesses whom he had intended to call had practically the same evidence as had already been given, he had decided not to call them. He would therefore dwell briefly on the case, and ask his Worship to give judgment. The transaction having beon made on the 16th August, ho did not intend to set up any defence as to Mr Kirkwood's capacity to authorise the sale. However, he wo'ild ask his Worship to remember that at the time when Mr Coachman met Mr Kirkwood and informed him of the sale, the latter had exclaimed, ''Goodness gracious!" or words to that effect, thereby indicatingthat he was surprised at what had been done. The fact that the first purchaser that came along had jumped at the offer (.£500), was, ho considered, proof that it was not a reasonable sum for the property. Mr Marshall stated that the fact that the Eitei stipulated had been obtained was all that was needed in such a transaction, and clearly established the plaintiffs as bonafidc agents. His Worship said that since the heading of the case he had received a letter from Mrs Kirkwood. I>o doubt this bad been written in ingoranee, and without knowledge that it wbb wrong to write such letters. He would like to say from the Bench that litigants in any case should not address communications to him, more especially when a case was under hearing. In g'viug judgment, he said the plaintiffs alleged that on cr about the 16th August Mr Couchman met the defendant ' in Wanganui and received instructions from him to dispose of his property on St. John's Hill for j6500. The point to be determined was whether on or about that date such instruction as alleged had been given. The witness Jones had stated that in a conversation with Mr Kirkwood he had been told that the ■ property had been placed in Mr Couchman's hands for disposal, while another witness (Russell) had given similar evidence. Mr Boucher, who had purchased the property, had stated that after negotiating with Mr Couchman he bad visited the defendant and informed i him of the arrangement, telling him at [ the time that he thought -£500 was too much to give for the property. The ■ defendant had then made no objection to the sale, but stated that no one would got the property for less than the amount named. The letter written by Mi Couchman to the defendant, notifying him ef the transaction, and to which no reply had been received, was also evidence as to defendant's knowledge and recognition of the agency on his behalf of the plaintiffs. The defence was a general denial, Mr Kirkwocd stating that although he had conversed with Mr Couchman on the matter he had in no way instructed him. He (Mr Kettle) considered that the weight of evidence was in favour of the plaint'ffs^and he should, therefore, give judgment for tje amount claimed, with Court costs J!l Is, solicitor's fee jSI Is, and witnessos expenses' £l. W. Chapman v. D. Peat and Charles Gordon, executors in the estate of the late Thomas flreig— Claim £19. Mr Hogg appeared for ths plaintiff and Mr Marshall for defendants. The defence pleaded the statute of limitation and after hearing the arguments of counsel on the point, his Worship decided to hear the evidence. The amount claimed was for the alleged value of a horse, alleged to been purchased by plaintiff in October, 1889, and sold by mistake at Mr HamI mond's sale in the following January. The evidence of WilliamJHammond, E. J. Chapman, and the plaintiff was taken, after which the case was adjourned until next Monday in order to allow Colcnel Gorton, the auctioneer, to be called. George Harrison v. Joseph Peapell — Claim 415, for balance alleged to be due for services rendered in negotiating salo of Section 162, Block 10. Mr Treadwell appeared for nlaintiff, and Mr Hogg for defendant. After hearing tho evidence the plaintiff waß non suited, with costs jells. J. C. Dallas v. Mrs J.B. Wilson— Claim .£6 for balance due for borse sold to J. B. Wilson, husband of defendant, deceasf d. The defence was that Mrs Wilson, not being the administratrix of the estate, and not being responsible for her'husband's debts, was not liable for the amount claimed. After hearing the evidence of the plaintiff and defendant the case was adjourned till 10.30 o'clock next morning. UNDEFENDED CAFES. Martha Gordon v. H. Eteveneaux— Clajm_ £o ss, for rent. Mr Hogg for plaintiff. No appearance of defendant. Judgment lor plaintiff by default, with costs £1 Is. N. Dodson v. J. H. Knight— Claim £5. Mr Marshall for plaintiff. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff by default, with costs 9s.