MAGISTERIAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2091, 17 January 1908, Page 1

MAGISTERIAL.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 10.

(Boforo Mr W. A, Burton, S.M.) Abusive Language.—-Ihigh Kelly was charged with having on January loth used abusive ianguago on the s.s, TuatcA. —Mr Bright appeared for accused. Ho said -tbit the circumstances showed that there had been provocation. The representative ol Messrs Dalgcty and Coy stated that accused had not paid his laro to go to tho Victoria, in the Bay.—Alexander Fullott, shipping clerk at Dalgcty and Cov’s stated that when tho Tuatea wai a few feet from tho wharf when going out accused' and another man, jumped' on her. Ho asked l tho ina.to of the Tuatea when tho tender was coming back it 'accused hud paid his faro. Did not address his 'remarks to accused. Then accused used tho abusive language'*.complained of. To' 2ilr Bright: Accused heard his query to tho mate and there* were other people" in hearing.—A lino ol £1 with costs 2s was imposed. Alleged Assault «m a Chinaman Robert Charles Brown was charged with having on January 13th assaulted Oiling 800, causing actual bodily harm. —Dotectivo Muddern asked for a. remand until January 22nd. A Mono bad' penetrated the Chinaman,’s skull and lie was not yet able, to appear, his life being still in danger. Also further arrests wop Id probably bo made.—Tho application for a remand was granted, bail being 'allowed, accused in £IOO, .-and two sureties of £SO. ‘ Judgment by Default.—Judgment by default was given in the following eases:—W. J. M. Attwood (Mr Burke) v. Tom Hunt, £2 Os 1; Harry iSaiidhuit v. Peter Reid. £3 8s: Daves, Third and Mitchell (Mr Stock) V. Elizabeth Sorry. £5, costs £1 5s fid ; George Eric SUierluw (Mr T. A. Coleman) v. W. A. K. Harris, £5 15s, costs c£l 3s.Gd; Pilcher Bros. (MiBright) v. John Clark, £lO 15s 3d, costs £1 10s Gd. Dispute about a Distress Warrant. —An interpleader claim entered by Miller and" Craig against _ E. P. Joyce for alleged wrongful seizure of furniture under a distress warrant was beard. —Mr T. A. Coleman appeared for plaintiffs and Mr Finn for defendant.—Mr Coleman, said the case was the. result of actions following on the issue ol a distress warrant. Tile distress warrant was against one John MeKellnr; but defendan 1 sought to distrain goods belonging solely to Mrs AloKellaiv — Mary Mo Medlar. surigical nurse, wife of John AfcKellar, as present resident in Dunedin, stated that in November last the bailiff visited her house. The bouse and land where she lived were her own property and her husband had no right or title to the land, tho bouse or any goods therein. About November 7th gave .instructions to present claimants to sell certain of her furniture. Prior to that had ■ {.disposed of a small amount-of goods from the house. Thought Air Miller made an inventory of tho goods his firm sold. The goods were sold to claimants for £2O and they afterwards auctioned 1 them. The. rest of her property had been sold by claimants about two months ago. All tho articles sold had been bought out of witness’s own earnings. The Bailiff seized tho goods sold to claimants. Had not seen lior husband for about eight months previous to that. By Mr Finn : Knew a judgment was got against her husband. Tlio first lot of furniture she sold through claimants was not advertised. The goods about which the pro,sent action was taken were on November 6tli the absolute property of claimants. _ She signed tho agreement with claimants on, November Ist at her own house. "Was paid for tho goods by claimants on. November 6th. Her husband was a laborer and had lived in Gisborne for seven years, but had never paid anything for the furniture in tho house. Her husband at various times had given ro •her portions of his earnings, -but none of this had been used for the purchase of furniture. —George K. Miller, of the firm of Miller and Craig, corroborated the evidence of •ale given by the previous witness. By Air Finn : "Was at Airs Alclvellar’s •residence when the Bailiff seized the goods and claimed them as his, showing him the agreement to sell.Francis Bullen, Bailiff, gave evidence of service of tho distress warrant. — Air. Film in his address said there was plain evidence of a. sale to’claimants. He contended that tho agreement to sell was an instrument and should have been registered undor tho Transfer of Chattels Act. The time for registration allowed by the Act had now expired. Some of the goods seized bv the Bailiff were not mentioned in the list of goods sold to claimants,. and the Bailiff- was entitled to seize and sell the- goods mentioned oil his list so -long as_ Airs Atclvellar did not enter an interpleader, which she had not done.— Air. Coleman contended that it was clear the agreement to sell was not an instrument .under the Transfer of Chattels Act. He quoted previous cases to show that a receipt with an inventory attached did notconstitute a bill of sale and make the document liable to registration. In Alargarett v. Ramsey, a well-known case, the husband had sold furnb turc to his wife, but tho learned judges held that, despite the fact that there was no formal delivery of the goods and that they still remained in the joint use of both husband and wife, the property in .the furniture was vested in tile wife. The contention of tho other side regarding articles seized by the Bailiff and not mentioned in, tho schedule attached to the agreement, to soil was not sound. The articles were in the inventfiry, but the Bailiff called them different names in bis list. It had been stated on oath that on November stli ever- article of furniture in the, house was the property of Afi.llo.r_ arid Craig, so that it would be impossible to seize anything not belonging to his firm. His Worship reserved judgment. Building Contract Dispute. —-The ease of Webb and Sons v. Williams and Sherrutt was called on for the taking of further evidence. Air Finn appeared for plaintiffs -and Air T. A. Goionian fordefendants. —J arnes Webb gave evidence that he wrote the document. which purported to- be a tender. To Air Coleman: When the tender was written saw a cheque for £IOO from tho Bank of New South Wales, which ho thought, was delivered with the tender. William Webb testified that he had delivered the tender along with a crossed cliequo of his own for £IOO. Had been to the Bank, but no record of tho cheques could be found. Usually tore up such cheques when ho received them back. Bv Air Coleman: Would not swear that the cheque in question was not a. Bank cheque, but as there w is no seeord at tho Bank lie would incline to the belief that it had been one of his own crossed cheques. Could not sav whether or not he had told certain people the cheque was a Bank one just before the case was heard on appeal in the Supreme Court. Eo-examinsd: Tliero was

never any question regarding the cheque.—Mr Coleman said ho would call evidence to show that Mackred ami Colley’s contract was in fact accepted. Their contract was taken on condition that the time was extended two months and the price lowered by about £250. Even since tho building was started further slight modifications had been made, as was llie cane in most contracts. Further, the contract had boon made nearly up to tho original amount sinco.'—Henry Williams, one of the defendants, said that before the written contract was signed he met »ir Colley in the street, and told him that practically there was only bin firm and an outsklo one tliot had Colley if ho could , not .reduce his a. chance for the job. Asked Mr. price. As a result of this interview the price was reduced by £250, and two months’ extension of time was granted to onablo the contractors to get, bricks locally. By Air. Finn: The contract was entered into- before tlio modifications were decided on —John Colley, of Alackrcll and Colley, said he met Air. Williams about Juno 7th, and Air. Williams said lie intended to givo the job, to Alackrcll and Colley. Saw Air. Williams next morning, and' in, response to his request reduced tho amount of his tender to £o7so.—Air. Parker, manager of t.lio Bank of Now (South Wales, said that a search had been made for a cheque of Webb and Son, dated about June 3rd, but no tmcc of it could bo found. Had no recollection of any dealing with Webb and Son regarding a deposit, on the .tender in question.—rAt this point the case was adjourned till 2.15 n.m. the following day, to enable Mr. AVebb’s cheque butts' to bo examined.