SUPREME COURT.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XVII, Issue 5203, 31 October 1883, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

{Before His Honor the Chief Justice.) Tuesday, October 30th. John pibrcy v. petera and others. On the Court resuming at 2.30 Mr Hutchison said that Mr Rees had found a reference iv his books to the forwarding of a clear statement of the lease to the Native Land Court in November IS6B. & _ Major Kemp was then called on behalf of the defence and said Petera had resided on Te-rua-te-ra since the treaty of Waitangi and his parents long, before. When Takirangi came back from Waikanae, having; been absent for a time, the land had been sold to Wakefield, Petera's parents; Petera himself and Te Ofci Takirangi had lived on the land bince. Everyone knew the land to be Petera's. To Mr Hutchison — Witness did not tell Petera to live on the land, but after he had gone to Wellington to see Sir Donald McLean about it, he told him to remain there. Witness told Taria to go there, but could not say whether she went before Mr Piercy came there. She had lately fenced in an additional piece of ground. Further evidence was then called on behalf of plaintiff. Takirangi Mete Kingi stated that he was one ot the grantees of the Kaiwbaiki block, and had been re^alarly in receipt of rent from the' holders since a year before the granting of the lep.se. The land fenced by Taria was not part of Te-rua-te-ra. Petera was re-called, and said Taria had fenced m the land within the last six or seven years. This being all the evidence, the case was adjourned to Wellington, the plaintiff to move for judgment on a day to be fixed. - HUGH M'ILHONE V. GEORGE M'CAUL. Hearing was resumed. Mr Hutchison for plaintiff, defendant conducting his own case. Evidence for plaintiff was' called — Hugh Mcllhone, plaintiff, stated that he had agreed with Mr Ancher before the contract with defendant was entered into that the lease and goodwill Bhould be £150, and this was .subsequently confirmed by Mr McCaul. Messrs Chadwick and Ross were appointed valuers, and it was agreed the nominal value of the lease should be ss. Witness got £40 from Mr Ancher, and a further bill for £50 on account of the £150. This >va3 before the valuation was made. Stock and furniture were valued at £479, and the balance for lease of £60 brought the amount up to £539. For this amount witness got two bills from defendant in Mr Tod's name, as he owed Mr Tod money, and because of proceedings threatened by the bank on accommodation bills given to Mr Lingard. Defendant subsequently objected to the inclusion of the Ll5O, unless he received LSO for his trouble. Defendant admitted the L6O as part of the contract, and gave the bills because he and Tod were partners in the concern. Witness would not give LSO, and McCaul said he would have no more to do with the matter. One of the bills for L 134 15s had matured, but defendant had not paid it. To Mr McCaul : Defendant did not ask the LSO till after the signing of the contract. The whole arrangement was to facilitate the disposal of the hotel ; and not to shelter witness's assets to Mr Tod in case of bankruptcy, as Mr Tod had then no claim on him, nor was it proposed to return the bills to plaintiff in the event of him not filing. He was not bound by Mr Tod to carry on this action, but had mortgaged his interest to Tod and had therefore to recover. If witness recovered, he would hand over to defendant the proceeds, less Mr Tod's claim, whatever that was. Witness denied having said that the action had been brought against his will, and that if the Court knew the circumstances the case would be dismissed. The nominal value of 5s was inserted at defendant's request to evade the stamp duty Mr MeCaul here denied the truth of this statement. Witness further stated that he never employed Mr McCaul to sell the place. The 1.0. U. for £50 was given to constitute defendant a creditor, lest he should get into trouble with the bank, and not for commission. ! Andrew Tod gave corroborative evidence. If defendant had got the £50 he was to pay the two bils for £269 10s — half the purchase money — and witness was to pay the other half. Ancher waa to pay the £60 balance on lease.. Witness had recovered nothing from Aucher, and could not say whether defendaat had. To Mr McCaul — Witness was not a partner with defendant, but would carry out his share of the arrangement. Witness got notice from defendant that the bill* were obtained by misrepresentation, and he would not meet them j but he afterwards discounted one of the bills. The bills were not to ba surrendered after valuation. Defendant had a beneficial interest in the transaction, as he had agreed that the sum of £20 owinghim by Anoher at his failnre was to be paid, and also £13, to witness. His Honor — This is a most extraordinary thing altogether. Witnes3 did not know that the bailment to defendant was arranged without any profit to hitr. Witness did not know whether the goodwill wa3 worth anything at all, but it was not worth £150. ' To Mr Hutchison — The business had much improved in Mr Mcllhone's hands, and the house was previously unlicensed. Defendant here addressed the Court, and stated that Mr Mcllhone had employed him to obtain a customer for the house, a' d suggested that Mr Tod and himself could arrange to put Ancher in the hotel after he gob his discharge. When Mr Lingard became bankrupt, it was thought Mcllhone might be sued, as he had endoised bills for Lingard to the amount of £220 Mr Ted came to him and said Mcllhone owed him a sum of money, and after discussing the matter, it was decided to introduce a third party, as Mr Tod, being trustee, could not act m the matter. Mellhone afterwards asked defendant to lake the matter off his hands, and he would give him something substantial for bis trouble, Mcllhone

proposed to give a P.N. for £50, but to save stamping, defendant suggested an 1.0. U., which was given. The prommissory notes were made for the purpose of covering Mr Mcllhone's probable bankruptcy, and securing the amount due Mr Tod ; and the valuation was to be divided between Tod and plaintiff. Edward Ancher gave corroborative evidence of value of stock of hotel, anil payments, which he alleged were on th« stock - bailment, and not on goodwill. Donald Ross said he was one of the valuers for the stock, but knew nothing about the lease or goodwill, Andrew Tod, recalled, in reply to defendant, eaid Mr E. R. Ward had called on him with defendant and asked why he had discounted one of the bills ; to which he replied- . it was because defendant owed him money. ' T R. R,: Ward waa then called by defendant and Btat€d J that Tod said tie' discounted the bill/with a lot of others, as he had lOBt a good deal of money lately. * / , To Mr Hutchison : Witness was present at the interview as a peacemaker. Defendant then was sworn, and substantiated what he said in opening kis case. His Honor : Mr Mcllhone has sworn that the 1.0. U. was given to make a fraudulent gift in the case of his bankruptcy. Witness : It is untrue, and has no foundation in fact. To his Honor : The date of the document was not the true one, for all documents were - dated back to cover plaintiffs probable bankrupt -y. Mr McCaul — Mr Mcllhone represented to me that as these bills were to give Lingard an accommodation, the creditors had no right to recover on them. To his Honor — He could not see himself clearly through the promissory notes. The matter was simply pushed on him by Messrs Mcllhone and Todd, , and he had no beneficial interest in it at all. H. Mcllhone, re-callect.said the 1.0. U. was given long before, the transaction so as to ■ constitute Mr McCaul a creditor, in . case a meeting of his creditors should be called. To his Honor—There was nothing" given in exchange for the 1.0. U., and it was simply to make defendant a creditor. His Honor said he would reserve judgment . to consider the bearings of the case. At present he was very much in the dark. The Court then adjourned.