R.M. COURT, MASTERTON.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 2, Issue 92, 24 February 1879, Page 2

R.M. COURT, MASTERTON.

Saturday, Femhjary 22. (Before H. S. Wardell, Esq., 11.M., and C. A. Vallance, Esq., J.P.)

MURTAGH V. TAIT. Civil Case. [Continued from our last.]

Plaintiff stated that he had overlooked calling Mr R, Brown, as he had subpoened him as a witness, %

The Court expressed its willingness to hear Mr Brown's evidence.

Richard Brown, Secretary to the Masterton Town Lands. Trustees, deposed as followsOn October 31 a special meeting of the Trustees was held to consider an application from Tait for permission to assign one-half of his interest in his leases to Phillip Murtagh. The application was agreed to, and a form of consent supplied by Mr Beard on bohalf of the applicant, signed, On November 21 another special meeting was held to consider an application from Tait to assign all his interest in the three-quarter acre to P. J. Murtagh. The application was not agreed to, and the meeting adjourned, On November 25 this adjourned meeting was held, and the application declined, in consequence of the Trustees having already consented to a mortgage which was still in force. The Trust received also an application from Tait to withdraw his former application made on November 21. With the original application Murtagh handed in a receipt from Tait for his land in Masterton, and also liis interest in eleven acres on the Upper Plain; amount, £2OO. Tait admitted signing the latter document, but said that he only did it as an arrangement by which accommodation could be obtained from the Bank, and not as a bona fide transfer... Mr Francis attended also, and stated that lie had a mortgago over the property. Witness believed there was also a document relating to horses arid furnituro handed in at the same time, He had a rough memo, of areceiptfor horses, etc.; amount, LSO. In answer to Mr Bunny, \Vitness said at one meeting Tait stated • that the receipts were a swindle, and that he had not received the money for which he had signed. He also spoke of a deed of partnership which was to have been oxecuted between Murtagh and himself. An opinion was stated by one or more members of the Trust that Murtagh was committing a fraud on Tait.

In answer to plaintiff, witness said lie could not say why the Trustees did not ground their refusal of the application on the opinion thus expressed. Mrs 'Tail called for the defence. Mr Bunny asked witness if she remembered a box being opened in'her boarding house 1

Plaintiff objected to the question, J)Ut the Court admitted it.

Witness remembered it. Believed that it was on November Ist that Murtagh opened it. Her husband and herself were present. The box belonged to Mr Partridge, and had been lent to herself. She believed that tho contents of the box were her own. He took out spoons and china which belonged to herself, also candlesticks and linen her property. 'Murtagh had not her permission to open the box. Ho said he had authority, and was taking lawful proceedings, Nothing in the box belonged to Murtagh. Had not removed any property from the premises other than what belonged to herself. Had told Murtagh there might bo twenty blanket and fifteen sheets, none of which she had removed from the premises. In answer to plaintiff, witness said: Had never been in the house since Nov. 1. Had been on the premises in anothor house belonging to a tenant. The box Murtagh opened was in the tenant's house. The articles in it wero not always there. They wero put in there by herself. Had not put anything in tho box, she believed, for some weeks before it was opened. Could not state positively if it was more than a Did not remember putting anything in the box on the same day. Did not remember carrying anything from the house to the tenant's during tho week before November Ist, except her oivn private apparel. Plaintiff: Did you cany any blankets or mattrassesyourself over ? Witness: I may have carried some over to air.

Plaintiff: Did you cany them back again'! ; Witness: Could not say. If she did not carry them back herself she would have had them taken back. . ..

Plaintiff: Did you offer any blankets for sale during the week i Witness: Never. .

Witness could not say whether her husband told her, when the box was opened; to keep quiet, as plaintiff was only doing what he had a right to do. Her husband restrained her while plaintiff opened the box. Did not see plaintiff read an agreement between her husband and herself before opening the box. The R.M. here declined to permit the examination of the present witness to he further proceeded with, on the ground that her testimony was altogether outside the issue, and expressed his regret that he had allowed matter which appeared to him to bo foreign to tho case to be brought before the Court.

Mr 11. Brown was re-called by 3lr Bunny, and, in reply to the Court, stated that it was not in the presence of plaintiff that evidence was brought' before the Town Trustees of the actual amount of money paid by him to defendant. This completing the defendant's case, Mr Bunny proceeded to address the Court, stating that it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove that a bona fide sale had taken place. Ho vindicated h.imself from having unnecessarily occupied the time of the Court, alleging that his duty to his client had compelled him to give prominence to all the circumstances in any way affecting the point at issue, He continued, that the defendant had been made 'the subject of a gross fraud, and commented in severe terms on the conduct of the plaintiff. Connsel's argument went to show that plaintiff proposed to have bought property for £250 which was worth £BOO, and had the assurance to ask the Court to confirm that transaction. The whole of the evidence was thorough by analysed by Counsel, and the point as submitted by him to the Court was, whether plaintiff was to be held entitled to the sole and undivided ownership in property of the value of £BOO, for which he had actually paid but £3O. The question of the alleged stolen documents, and the marvellously retentive mem6ry of plaintiff and'his witnesses, was dwelt oil at considerable length by Mr Bunny, who contended that the contents of the documents were the fabrication of their own minds. He also alluded to the fact that witnesses who had been ordered out of Court had disobeyed that order, and claimed that tho testimony of Bassett was not worthy of the smallest consideration. He argued that there was no ovidence to show the existence of the documents, but if the Court was satisfied as to their reality, he then .contended they had been obtained by fraud, and as such gave 110 title to the plaintiff to the property in dispute. Mr Bunny quoted authorities in support of his case, and asked for judgment for tho defendant.

During the progress of Mr Bunny's address, he was subjected to frequent interruptions from the plaintiff'. The R,M. directed the plaintiff as to the matters upon which he was entitled to address the Court,

. The plaintiff then addressed the Court, his arguments being very discoursive, and in the course of his remarks was informed by the Court that it felt satisfied defendant had signed the documents, knowing their contents at the time. The plaintiff contended the evidence of the defendant was not worthy of merit, that the transaction was a bona fide one, and that he had legitimately become possessed of the second moiety ill all defendant's property for £25. Plaintiff concluded his address by affirming his conviction that the Court would have no difficulty in distinguishing a 8 to who was the rogue and who the honest man, and appealed with considerable ardour for'' his rights." Tho Court then adjourned to 2 p.m. At 3 o'clock, the Court having resumed, the Resident Magistrate pronounced the judgment of the Court as followsWe have given careful consideration to the evidence which has been brought before us in this case. The evidence has occupied a considerable time, and has related to several transactions. 1 quite appreciate the difficulties against which counsel has had to contend, and fully recognize .that in tho interests of his client he has fblt it necessary to bring forward material which at the time appeared irrelevant. That it was irrelevant, has, I think, been since shown. The question wliicli has been tried is the ownership of a grey gelding claimed to lmve been sold to the plaintiff under an agreement of the 18th November. Two agreements were entered into on that date, one of which related to land, tho other to certain effects, including the grey gelding in question. That the defendant signed those agreements with a knowledge of their contents, we have no doubt, but we are of opinion that he was induced to do so by the promise of plaintiff to give him a private deed of partnership—that promise has not been carried out, and we hold tho contract incomplete for want of consideration.

The plaintiff gave notice of appeal. • Mr, Bunny applied for expenses of defendant and his wife. The- Resident Magistrate allowed 20s. expenses. Criminal Cam. P. J. Murtagh and Mary Murtagh were then charged, on tjie information of George Tait with malicious injury to the property of tho latter. Defendants pleaded not guilty, Mr. Bunny appeared for the informant, and stated that on the 23rd January last the defendants broke into the house of the informant on part of town section

N0.,'72, and committed the damage as (o which the information was laid.

Arthur Falloon (sworn) deposed: That on the afternoon of the 23rd January he was requested by Tait to go with him and others to take possession of his property. Tait instructed the carpenters who wero with thorn to nail up the doors and windows, and those directions wore carried out. Tait then went out to see about a horse, tho carpenters also left, and lie (witness) alone remained. He heard afterwards that Tait had been: put into ■ " Chokee." He saw Mrs. Murtagh breaka window in the' door, and a side window withJa hammer. That Was all he saw Mrs. Murtagh do. He also saw Murtagh come, throw off his coat, and make as though to get in at the window, the lower part of which was alreadr, broken. Ho lifted up the frame of sip window and attempted to get' through, but witness shut down the window and kept him out. Murtagh then got an axe and.,broke the window all to pieces. He walked through the door with the axo in his hand, and .witness quitted tho premises. That was all he saw on that occasion. Cross-examined by Murtagh: Witness saw Murtagh come in with the axe in his, hand. Witness was.not out of the house before Murtagh was in, When he went in first no one was in the house. He saw no one in it. Ho knew Murtagh had been living in the house. Knowing that Tait hada better right to be. there than Murtagh, witness went with the former at his request he had nailed up nothing ; he was certain Tait had a right to go to tho house, because he held the leases; witness proposed protecting Tait from harm; lie . would swear he' did not go thei;e . for tlio ■ purposo of robbing Murtagh of documents belonging to him ; he had taken no docu- - ments; lie had seen Mrs Murtagh ; at. tho window, and she put her head through; he put the sash down, but did not try to jam her head down; he had not struck Murtagh, He knew Murtagh was living on some part -of the • premises, but did r.oi know if others were • living there, He might havo been living. ' in the outside kitchen. He knew Murtagh had frightened Tait away, because lie was present on one occasion when Murtagh had done so with a knife in his. hand. Witness had not " drawn.Murtagh's claret." He had seen.no one strike. Murtagh. Ho had seen Murtagh break nothing before witness had prevented his entrance. He was aware that Tait had sold his half interest, but knew that the transaction had not been carried out. He had written a letter to Murtagh urging an amicable settlement. By Mr Bunny: He had not struck Murtagh with a scantling. He had assaulted 110 one that afternoon. The Court here interposed, and the reexamination was not proceeded with. Cross-examined by. Mrs Murtagh: Witness had not brought downthp sash on her head. It might have fallen on her neck. The square of glass in. the front door was broken, with a stone, and the side window with a hammer. . Mr Bunny here put in the lease of tho property from the Town Trustees to Tait, but the Court held it to be unnecessary to do so. ' Constable Scales was then called, and deposed to the disturbance on the afternoon of the 23rd January. He had arrested Tait in the street for a breach, of ■ the peace. He had heard one or two screams from Mrs Murtagh, and the sound of breaking glass; he also saw Mrs Murtagh with the upper part of her body pushed through the window. She'liad made no complaint to witness, fishacl- . afterwards seen Murtagh trying to get in at the samp window, but did not succeed in doing so. Murtagh seemed under great excitement, and seemed determined to force an entry. Afterwards had made a . .speech to the crowd and read some papers to them. He saw Falloon run out of the front door, and Murtagh afterwards came out, but all he hold in his hand were soma papers. He saw 110 one strike Murtagh, but was scarcely in a position to notice, . Murtagh had made no complaint to him. '< The witness was then cross-examined by Murtagh, but nothing further was elicited from him. Mr Tait, the complainant, was then called, and gave testimony in corroboration of the previous witnesses. (The manner in which this witness testified provoked considerable amusement.) The witness was then subjected to a very searching cross-examination by Murtagh, in the course of which he stated that he had never given Murtagh possession. Murtagh had taken possession at the point of a knife. He admitted to having subsequently assisted Murtagh to put his things 011 the premises, and that he had acknowledged him as his partner at that time; but the partnership had ceased when Murtagh had put him out of the premises.

By Mr Bunny: Murtagh never was his partner. He might have been so if lie had earned out his agreement. This completed the caso for the informant.

Murtagh then urged in his defence that he was the rightful owner of the property, find had been unlawfully dispossessed of it. In endeavoring to enter on his own premises he had been violently assaulted by Falloon, but he himself had committed no assault.

The R.M. dismissed the information, en the ground that the defendants had acted under a fair and reasonable supposition that they, had a right to do the act complained of. (31 Vict., No. C, Section No, 52.' "•

In reply to Mr Bunny, the KM. added that his decision was not intended '.to apply to the ownership of the property. The case of Margaret Tait v. P. J. Murtagh was adjourned to the next Bitting of tho Court.

Nearly tho whole evening was occupied with the hearing of an application made by Mr Bunny, on tho information of Arthur Falloon, that B. J, Murtagh should be bound over to keep the peace against him, the said Murtagh having exhibited threats of personal violence towards tho informant,

Evidence was brought forward in support of the application, mid ultimately the case was adjourned to next sitting" of the Court to enable Murtagh to produce evidence of an alibi, ho being bound) over in his own recognizance and one surety, ■each for £2O, to appear before the Court,