Civil Cases.

Inangahua Times, Volume VII, Issue 1068, 31 March 1882, Page 2

Civil Cases.

HINDMARSH V. McCrAFPIN.

Mr Jones for the plaintiff. Mr Lynch, for the defendant, at the outset took a preliminary objection that the Bummons was bad, as it called upon the defendant to answer a claim on the 16th of January, 1881, instead of 1882. It was radically wrong on the face of it, which he held could not be amended, and was fatal to the case proceeding.

Mr Jones argued that as this was an adjourned case, and that as defendant had appeared by his attorney on two former occasions, it had cured all informalities. He, therefore, aaked the Magistrate to amend the summons.

The Magistrate thought that the invalidity of the summons had really been waived, but at the same time he would not recommend the plaintiff to go on, for if he obtained a verdict, defendant might get a writ of prohibition, which would involve both great expense , and considerable delay. He thought it would be better to issue a fresh summons without further fees, the case to be heard at the next court. Wilson v. Taylor. Mr Lynch for plaintiff. This was a rather peculiar case, the circumstances of which were as follows. In 1879 plaintiff, who had been engaged by defendant as farm servant, sued for wages due to him and recovered £29. In the following week defendant filed his schedule, but proceeded no further. According to the Bankruptcy Act, after the lapse of three years an lusolvent is virtually certificated and is free from all his debts, excepting in cases of fraud and some other exceptions. The defendant, therefore, was clear of his

ordinary debts, but Mr Lynch argued that this case came within the fraudulent provisions, inasmuch as plaintiff, when engageo, was told by deiendant that he was the proprietor of the land on which plafntiff worked, whereas it belonged to a person in Nelson. This, therefore, was a judgment summons to compel payment on the verdict recovered before defendant's bankruptcy. Defendant was put into the box and denied that he ever had represented he had any property. He said he was working but got no wages. He had no cattle that could be said to be his own, they belonged, he considered, to others, but could not say who. He could not tell who he worked for, neither was he aware that he got anything out of what he was doing. Powell was the mortgagee of the property. He could not tell whether he had sold any cattle within the last six months or not, but he thought he had within the last year. He had killed sheep and sold the mutton. The Magistrate did not think fraud had been proved and declined to make the order. Thomas and Mcßeath v. Ross. Mr Jones for plaintiffs. Verdict by default for £4 6s. AtTEMAR V. COCHRANE. Mr Jones for the plaintiff. A claim for £3 for services alleged to have been rendered. The defence waa that defendant never engaged plaintiff at all. The plaintiff was nonsuited with costs-

The Court then adjourned