R. M. Court.

Woodville Examiner, Volume VIII, Issue 869, 11 February 1892, Page 2

R. M. Court.

WOODVILLE—THIS DAY. (Before Mr Turnbull, E. M.) DRUNK. Charles Blennage on a second charge of drunkenness was fined £1 and costs or 14 days’ imprisonment. PROVOKING LANGUAGE. .Tames Storrie was charged with using insulting language to James Tipping at the Kumeroa School Committee. Air Gothard appeared fi r the plaintiff and asked that Storrie should be bound over to keep the peace. J. Tipping stated that defendant had come to the School Committee and used bad language to Mr Gregory. On the following Sunday he came to witness and called him a d —d blackguard and scoundrel, saying that he was prepared to go to the gallows for the members of the committee and that they would disappear. He would hide the seven of them. He had been in the habit of using bad language to witness. By defendant: Had uot told defendant he would give him a hiding. H. M. Simmonds gave corroborative evidence. He also stated that defendant put his fist np to Tipping’s face and offered to give him a good hiding. Defendant stated that he had only been asking for justice, and was not in a position to find sureties. He wished to give the Court a full account of the Kumeroa School troubles. He admitted having called Tipping a blackgaurd, but had done nothing more.

The Court ordered the defendant to give his own recognisances in the sum of ±lO to keep the peace for six months. Defendant: I’ll agitate for justice till I get it. Tlie Court: There is a wav of doing that. Defendant: I’ll do it the lawfulleet way I can. A SECOND CASE. A similar charge was made against James Siorrie with regard to R. Gregory, who gat e evidence of the offence. Defendant admitted calling Mr Gregory a d—d scoundrel. A similar order was made to the .previous one. Costs were given in the two • cases, amounting to 18s, witness’ expenses 10s, solicitor’ fee I.os 6d. CIVIL BUSINESS. W. Loada- v McCauley-—Claim £. Judgment for amount with costs lls, M r Gothard for plaintiff, defendant did not appear. Davies v J. G. Wilson. —Claim £llos. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff with costs 7s. W. W. Christie v Jas. Allardice.— Claim ±9 5s Cd. Mr Burnett appeared for Dr Christie. Defendant did not appear. Judgment for amount claimed with ±1 lls costs, and solicitor's fee ±T Is. Bradbury v J. Walker.—Claim il Bs. Defendant did not appear. Judgment for amount claimed with 6s costs. Same v J. Spink.—Claim iT, balance of account. Judgment for plaintiff with costs. INTERPLEADER. Murphy v. Willisci oft, with Mr Wilks interpleading. Mr Manisty appeared for Mrs \Vilks, and stated that Mr Murphy had seized, under a judgment for i'27, a mare and foal which Mrs Wilks had bought from Williscroft last October.

Mrs Wilks deposed that site bought the marc and foal on the 9th October for £l2, and produced the receipt. Had tried to buy it before, but Williscroft would not sell then. Had earned the ±’l2 herself, and had paid it herself to Williscroft. The mare and foal had been in her possession since. Cross-examined by Mr Burnett, on behalf of Mr Murphy: Williscroft was her brother. Did not know where bo was living in October. He very often stayed with her when he came to Woodville. Had bought the mare for her own use. Was not very well off, but had afforded the mare. Did not consider the mare omy a luxury, Williscroft had not returned the money or any part of it. No arrangement had been made to sell the horse back to Williscrott. Did not know her brother's financial position when he sold ■ the mare. The receipt (which was worded “ bought from Williscroft for £l2, without acknowledging the receipt ol Ah 9 money) was written by her husband. Did not know why it was worded like that, but thought it was all right. Knew nothing of any liability on the horse when she bought it. To the Court: Her husband was a labourer, but she made about 10s a week by her sewing.

" John Wilks stated that he remembered the purchase of the mare and foal, and saw the purchase money handed over. His wife made money independently of what he gave her. Had about ten acres of land in grass. Cross-examined: Had known Williscroft about eight or nine years, Didupt know his whereabouts or his financial position. Thought the form of receipt was all right. Had no arrangment to return the mare to Williscroft. The receipt was written at the time of Bale. Did not know the liability on the horse. Thought ±l2 a fair value for the mare and foal. The foal was a few days old, and the mare about sis years. Thought the foal worth about ±6 and the mare about ±6. The sale was a hona fide one, Walter Morrison, called by Mr Burnett, stated that he was Mr Murphy.'s firm manager, and that Williscroft bad brought the mare to Fitz Hercules, - He had not paid the bill. Met him on New Years’ Day, and was told by him that he was going to sell the mare and pay the bill. She was a good mare, by Premier, had wen several races, and was worth from ±lO to ±l2. The foal should have been worth ±lO. Twelve pounds was not a fair value for the two. The mare had always been running in Wilks’ paddock. Was certain that Williscroft had said he was going to sell the marc. Cross-examined : Did not always find his debtors tell the truth when talking, about their accounts. Did not believe Williscovoft.

Mr Burnett submitted that the sale was evidently a bogus one, from its having been sold under value to Ilia sister, and from the peculiar form of the said notice. He also submitted that under the “ Chattels Transfer Act" the receipt should have been registered. As it had not been registered it was null and void. Mr Manisty submitted that the Chattels Transfer Act did not apply. It only app'ied where the chatted renjajped in the posses-ion of the nominal vendor. In this case the sale had been completed and possession transferred. The sale could not be upset on the grogncl of a low price. Mr Burnett pointed out that WUliscroft should have been produced.

Air Aianisty said that they had tried to find him.

The Court considered that the sale was a bogus one, and that as the mare had always been running in AVillis's paddock the sale note should have been registered. The interpleader would bp disallowed, and the mure would be sob! under iho distress warrant. Summons dismissed, with costs 6s, witness Bs, solicitor FT Is. (Left sitting).