A Batch of Interesting Court Cases.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume V, Issue 623, 20 June 1891, Page 2

A Batch of Interesting Court Cases.

A TEAM OF BULLOCKS—A STRANGE DISPUTE. A case of considerable interest was that of John McDowell v. Richard Finlay, claim £5O; Mr Jones for plaintiff, and Mr No'an for defendant. Mr Jones explained that the plaintiff had disposed of certain bullocks and drays to the defendant for £65, of which he had received £l5. The balance, according to plaintiff’s version, was never paid, while on the other hand he understood the defendant was prepared to say he had paid it. Under these circumstances it would be a case for His Worship to watch very c’osely, as both statements could not be true. On the one hand the plaintiff could only bring himself, and the fact that a cheque was given several days afterwards and dishonored, to back up his side. On the other hand, if the defendant had really paid the money he should have no difficulty in showing it to the satisfaction of the Bench. He called Mr G. J. A. Johnstone, who produced a sale note of the bullocks. The plaintiff deposed that previous to 30th January, 1891, he had been using his bullock team in defendant s service. About that time he agreed for the sale of hie bullocks to R. Finlay for £65. He received two cheques, one for £lO and one for £5 He was positive he had never received the £5O. Finlay tried to raise the money, and he (plaintiff) was asked to sign his name to a P.N. (produced) for that amount and he (Finlay) could get it cashed. He demurred to this, because be might have'to eventually pay the bill, but Mr Clayton, who was to endorse the bill, agreed to retire it, and gave him a dooumant in writing to the effect that it was only an accommodation bill. Mr Finlay took the bill and came back saying he bad taken tbe promissory note to the Bank to cash and they bad refused, but ha would try and get tbe cash some other way. Mr Finlay about 4 h February gave him another cheque which he thought was for £5O, but the Bank refused to cash it. [The cheque presented to the Bank was for £3O j He went and had some words with Finlay, who asked to have a look at ths cheque, and when he got it he put it in h : s pocket. He said for God’s sake not to expose him, as all his money was locked up in ths hotel and he would try and get the amount somehow. He offered to pay £lO a month, but witness declined, and said he wanted the eash. This offer was made in the presence of James Comlaky. Ho asked for the amount several times, but Finlay always put him off, saying he had not got the money out cf the hotel ye'. Finlay never denied responsibility to him. Witness understood that he had a claim on the bullocke until the £5O was paid. He himself paid the driver up to February 4th, defendant saying he would pay as usual for the timber that was carted. Witnese heard that Finlay had mortgaged the bullocks, and he found that he had no further title to them He at once instructed his solicitor (Mr Jones) to dema .d tha £5O, and his statement then that he had paid the amount was the first intimation that Finlay disputed owing the money. He did not owe Finlay anything fir drinks or otherwise. The cheque for £lO he had given to Mr James Finlay in payment of an account for £§ he owed him. Was quite certain that defendant never been paid the money in dispute. The cross-examination of witness, at Mr Nolan’s request, was postponed until after lunch On resuming Mr Jones said hi had a couple more questions to put. He asked whether defendant had since the summons was issued made any offer of settlement or otherwise. Mr Nolan objected. Mr Jones said it was most important, and it having just come to his knowledge he was justified in using it, Mr Booth said the evidence might be given.

Witness replied that on the previous n evening Finlay had sent for him into the t Royal Hotel, where he was staying. Finlay wanted to get the case settled. He said he s was a poor man, and could not give witness j cash, but would give him paper that he could get money for. Witness said he would leave the matter entirely in Mr Jones’ hands, and he referred the defendant * to him. That morning after the Com t had ‘ opened Mr Finlay had sent for him into the Court, and had offered to give him £lO 5 cash and a promissory note for the 1 remainder. 5 Cross-examined by Mr Nolan: Ha had t cashed both tbe £lO and £5 oheq in with Mr 1 James Finlay. It was at the latter end of January. Had been about town since Fsb- . ruary. Had had other moneys from Finlay ; far work done. At one time in January he got £9 Had besides £3 or £4 more. He got his tmney in various ways. He had a 1 bush from which he sold the timber. C>uld 1 not say what moneya he had received from Finlay for wood, nor if he had received a 5 cheque for £lO. Was not spending money 1 freely. Had several small accounts with 5 various publicans. His account wi'h James r Finlay had been continuous for five ysars; ha occasionally paid him In wood and cash. . He could not say whan ha had last paid f Mr James Martin. Did not pay Mr Adair out of the proceeds of sale of bullocks, and j did not tell him so. BeHeved Mr FinUy paid the driver after 4’h February —he said he • would do so. Defendant did not give him five £lO notes. He did not remember having several £lO no’es early in February. To Mr Jones; Had had money from Mr ’ Woodbine Johnson before the 30 h January ; htd received from him a £lO cheque which ho asked Finlay to cash. Defendant took it, and said he would give him the change io the morning, meantime he could have _ any drinks he wanted. Plaintiff had no drinks, but went to Finlay for the change next morn ing. Finlay told him he was short at the bank, and he would give it him again. Subsequently he got the money. To the Bench : He would again swear, in the presence of Mr Finlay, that the latter had offered him £lO cash and promissory notes for the remainder.. Mr Nolan said they admitted the offer of £lO cash, but not the other part. A L, Cooper deposed that he was keeping the books at defendant’s at the time, and remembered plaintiff being annoyed about the dishonored cheque. There was no account for anything like £5O in the books against the plaintiff. To Mr Nolan : Plaintiff was drinking freely about the hotel. To Mr Jones: I do not think he would have spent anything like £5O in a few days. His Worship desired that Mr J. Maher should be called, and this was done. Witness testified that he had first gone for plaintiff, at defendant's request, and also corroborated the plaintiff's version of the affair. That morning he (witness) had called McDowell out of Court at Finlay's request, but did not hear what passed. Mr Nolan, for the defence, said they admitted that the whole amount was not paid at once. Tbe plaintiff had received £l5; subsequently ho was paid £2O in two £lO notes, and a cheque for £BO was given and dishonored. This cheque was again paid in three £lO notes. Mr Booth said it seemed strange that defendant should offer £lO to settle if he did not owe anything—he surely would not I offer to give £lO away like that for nothing. < Mr Nolan said that was in order to avoid the worry and loss of time. 1 T. Cotter deposed that he was barman at Finlay's in February last. Plaintiff was i spending money freely at the Argyll Hotel about the time mentioned. Had seen one £lO 1 note and several single notes in plaintiff's f posßastion, t

To Mr Jones: Plaintiff did not cash the £lO note. Do not know what Bank it was on. Had beard plaintiff say he had not been fully paid.

The defendant deposed that he had paid plaintiff two £lO notes, and then a cheque for £3O. The cheque was taken to the bank before ho had banked his takings, and be afterwards paid him with three £lO notes. Plaintiff was at that time spending more money than usual. He had got tbe £lO notes from the Bank of New Z aland in exchange for a cheque of Mr Clayton’s for £5O. Plaintiff never made any demand until he got the letter from Mr Jones, solicitor.

To Mr Jones: Was certain about getting the notes from the Bank. Had not his bank book with him. Had tried unsuceessfu'.ly to get tha money on the P.N. (produced) for plaintiff. Had kept proceeds of cheque frem Clayton from January 31 to Febiuary 4 because defendant did not want it. Had not his cheque book with him. At this stage the question arose as to production of the defendant’s bank book and cheque book. Mr Booth thought it was important to have these and the case was adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m for their production. ALL ABOUT A PIG. A case which created some amusement, came on yesterday morning. J. P. Leech sued Hire Tamke for £8 7s 6d, the value of a boar shot by the latter. Mr Finn for plaintiff, and Mr L. Rees for defendant. The facts, which were undisputed, were that the pig, being of an aggressive nature, bad found its way into the native's cultivation, and he, resenting the intrusion, had snot the pig. The animal which was the cause of the lawsuit, was a wonderful beast, the pride of its owner, who placed great value • upon it on account of its good breeding. According to one witness it conld jump a five-wire fence, end coull squeeze between wires where a fish could not get through. The case turned on & point raised by Mr Race, that tbe land being cultivated, the defendant, according to law, was justified in shooting the pig. His Worship upheld this view and nonsuited the plaintiff, with 10a 61 fee. THE TWO DAVIDS. Rawin' Maki sued Rawiri Karaha for £1 13< 61. for goods supplied ; Mr Jones for plaintiff, and Mr Bees tor defendant Both parties admitted the sale of the goods, hut ths defendant contended that he bad paid in work done in clearing scrub. There wee some dispute as to the exact quantity of the work, and by arrangement tbe ease was ad* journed to get the clearing measured. OTHER CASES John Lough v M. MeCredie and others ; Mr Watson for plaintiff ; claim £l7 13s Rd ; judgment by default for £l6 5s 61, coete £5 ss. G. Coleman v same; claim £l3 16s; Mr Watson for plaintiff; judgment by default, costa £6 14s. East v G. Hall; claim £4 10s 7d; judgment by default for £3 10> 7d, costs 7s. W. Finlay vJ. Wall; Mr DeLautour for plaintiff; claim £3O; judgment by’oonsant, costs £1 13e.