RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S

Manawatu Times, Volume V, Issue 136, 23 April 1881, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S

♦ C .ThotSbayT A-£»f l @ff 1881. [Betbr^e^eyßlesident Magistrate.] v ..XAJLUSfiJTO BDPPOKT. _ .. Matilda,, Nelson . lodged % a^complaint against tier hns'Band-'MaHin" Nelson, that he, while having suffieieriT meani, failed to contribute toward her support; The evidence disclosed a state of great unhappiness- betweea the .parties, who were both quite young, and the advice of the, Bench as to their coming together again being, ineffective, an <»V<ler A for the payment of ten shilling per week was. made. ' '. - "■ ■■■• -- =■-■ k-~^i': Fred. Mowlem v. William. Sexton. — Claim for rates due ,to the- Manawatu . County Council for £1. .^Defendant did not appear, ajjiL, judgment was given ear parte._ *.' "V-. '•'.."'!: ...'..'• ' ' *Z Same v. Samuel ' Pratten.— Claim, of £l 6s, <ajsb 7 i(o^ ratesi ; °''l*be -defendant^ who did f noit ' appea^'foYwafded Ja letter stating bis iuibility tb>pay,;iio*witbstanding which, 'however, judgment was given, m default, .with? costs. : - ; - :- r ■- -^ Same t. Hector M'Donald.-^-Claim for £20 for rates. Defendant appeared and while admitting the claim, stated that he had intended to have objected at the Assessment Court. Judgment by 'consent. Same v. J. H. Lucas.— Claim, £3 9s Sd. There was no appearance* and judgment was given m default, with costs.,. Thomas Samuel . Hoe v. ' Jacob* Joseph. —Claim for £4 9si 6d/^or Tat^ f or t j, e Manawatu Highways Board .*'" The evidence was taken m Welling too, bnt as thedoeuments were not properly stamped, the case was adjourned till next Couit day to allow for the defect being remedied. . . ' : j Joseph Beale v. James Lee, Jan. — Claim, £18 6s, for meat supplier!. Mr. Perkins for plaintiff. Defendant said that he was not m a position to dispute the bill, for want of evidence, and consequently would have to submit. Edward Scott, an employe cf Mr. Be&le's, gave evidence as to the delivery of the meat ta defendant. Judgment for plaintiff with £1 19s costs. Fred Mowlem v. Henry John.— Claim* for ten shillings, for rates due to the Manawatu County Council for propertyowned by him StoiMy Cft'tk.? Judgment for plaintiff/ %itb>costs: J - John Mowlem v. Hans Martin Anderson.—Claim, £15. Mr^Waxburton for plaintiff. The defendant .did not appear,, and judgment was given ex parte. H. Wiesner v. Franz Hoffman.— Claim* £3 10s lOd. Mr. Hawkins appeared for the defence, and stated that £*¥ Ss had; been paid into Court. The litigants were both Germans, whose evidence was taken, through an interpreter and occupied a. very large portion of the/ day." Judgment for 8s fid m addition to the amount paid into Court. Bank of New Zealand r. W. 8. Staite.. —Claim, £2& 14s 5d.: Mr. Perkins (or the plaintiff; and Mr. Hawkins for defendant. Counsel for the plaintiff called the defendant as a witness, but Mr. Stake before consenting to, be sworn, demanded a guinea, as be had been subpoenaed as & witness. • : y : • Mr. Perkins replied thaUhe, did not call him as a witness, but as the defendant, to show cause why he bad not complied with the order of the -Court. Mr, Hawkins contended that JVfrv. Staite was fully entitled to h>s expenses. He had no other business at the Court than to answer the subpoena. . Mr, Perkins maintained, that ,the precaution of issuing a 'subpoena had only be taken m order to ensure 'the defendant's attendance In, any case, it had been repeatedly ruled that once a witness; was m attendance, he was' compelled te> give evidence. _ <■ The Bench ht Id that the defendant * living m the town and being present m Court, should give bis evidence-without tbefee. • ' - U Mr. Staite was then s worn^ and gavethe following evidence: I am a solicitoi .oftbe.Suprenxe Court. I_have no property that lam aware of. I have somefreehold !in the other Island, /but it i& mortgaged for far more than its value. [Mr. Perkins asked what property the witness had been possessed of, but the Bench held that the 'examination could not go beyond the date of the judgment.! Examination continued— l Have had several 'pianos, i ., I sold one, to Mr,. M'Q'uar He. I got $30 for }U ' I cannot > tell you how long ago it is, ; buf it is not very long ago. It was not my property.. It belonged to Mr. Batt, as trustee for my wife. I reeeivpd tne-money, but immediately handed it; rover to the party who was entitled to it — that was my wife^ I have had some of the mone\ back from? her. I gave a^rd^er for £10. upon herto a'creflitot dfTnitferVno told me he had the bailifßjiin the BSuse, She was not m. Palmerßton at the time. I have also several small sums from her. I have not had £20 back from her out of the £30.. I did not receive" a~peTray ~in "consideration for giving the order. -. It <is- about a. fortnight since [ gave 'the 'order The £10 was at nay disposal, and fcotjld have paid it to whom I lik«dl I have no furi niture ; none whatever. My furniture ia ,gtpred.aj^eoj^n^B,^^^a*Te | B.;where. It belongs to Mr, Batt, as trustee, for. nay

wife. The assignment may have been "~ ascig^m L CnTTnrougn^n* < fural itfVe and kf-~ Afectieq and^n*hillingsrr Jsbou^chrather imagine the consideration was sOfficieht —that is, the love an,d affection." "X wjas -* iS^difficuTt/at «ffil - fcime r r made the assignment. I'yrtf able to pay twenty r r shillings itt-the- £r«id am^ojstiH, I be- ~* lieVs.*^ "It is ve'ry'fSosssibi^uiailin execution had beebqiitt mte my house previous t<L.tftg issignmjent.., -T^b,ere r may have been lather^execntibns put int6 my house; ■ KClcMtfQtigcollecr;. The i^bailiff* neyer seized any .property under executions issued from this court, because I did not jit o wmitJ fedid' not • serve notice; <3ra the builiffa that property had been trans4fit I g tivfraenPveronl And prbducedihe r d*ed. I^jmagine the deed bad the effect of protecting the property, as I tJ.C^?SSfSKfe w IP * gQ** 4 4^» T&d} had a seal upon it. Ido not think an execution has been put into ray house upon this- - jadamehj;* Icaariet tay whethsr or not the furniture was removed from myhousi at TeiTaceJEindl jtefore. the judgment mi this case r was 'given. It might have bsen v; sin.cc; E couldtnot say. Since, the jdate *>£ ' the judgment I have received about" £40, •Jbut^a Considerable^ portion ' of ; that has not had the. means of satisfying the claim. I could not' tell bow much money „ I -have received. for ; my professional serkiTrees': iireceived i promissory note for. £11 which t gave to my clerk for salary dneito/him, but it ha*, not. matured yet. [The witnesses fhen read out from a list the aUnmriC of money: received for his professional services during the last five weeks, and ' Mr. Perkins having totted them Upv/'it^fts found the; amount* i to £2S v 5T9d, m addition to'the promissory note for jtl IJ} •? I have not received a ..single penny.for services at the .District • CJofir't;' I' have hot" given" any brdert upon . amounts whieh-may be owing ta me. I . tlave' ndtTgiVenMr.-ifiawkins any money since Hh r e: } judgment.- i I ' was owing my . jelerk hisisalary, and I- told him he might keep* the P.N. for Jill. I never saw it.. . r YeB, tmust have seen it, sines I endorsed i<; it k Mylother evidence miy be qualified inisthesame'i manner as that relating f the bill; PbigibJj_l may have received more than £40. The six pounds between TtKe^^ o^'a^d the RNv may ha^ve be^n } «pe.nt;in: payidg small debts:.; I' psidja milk gbjl^y and bopght ;some tob eco. I have been a solicitor for the past ten or eleven years the last three* at Pahtfe'f&on? a very good" business, but I am not retained m every.' experience is-thttHtis not usual for clients. tAfywnegndsmj rosts,, , 1 general Wsk Coarrfees benajd m advance. I baye made 'no proposal to pay jtbe debt, butt would be very glad ta pay - if wfthrn^atWuple-ot "mdiiths. 'I have bought goods, dra^y,'"'&c.v and ! may bave had a glass of beer occasionally. 1 "•nrstHHnr practice itt^Palraerston as a , jsolici^or. but decline to. say whether I jcontij^ue..Bp.. .T.h^e, gentries m my ttitofci ire~ln L ade by my clerk and mystlf. This eoncludetfctheitxamination of the defendant, and Mr Perkins, ia a lengthy A .corantented^" ,stroja§ly?upoh the practice of} Kuibatfii's making deeds of aunignments-upon-t heir wives, which m ; 'nine catesbut of ; ten 1 done'J. with a . fraudnjent mention. ;, , Jn.the case ynder review such a docuuieat, had b^ea d^-awn np, but tbs defendant had of hw own a|sr 4ind4nßt3ad-of'han(i---»ng the money over to the trustee, who' s^w/Uf the^prop^jr;- person: to; VeceiveTit, jit ,was,given,to his^wife, only.to r be takeu ba^k •agaTn^nHrariouVsunw:^ The defendant had sworn; that he was unable to pay the amount^ .yjetTit was elicited from him -' > ijn'evi(len.,ce^^hat ! he:hadia.ctualjy received ■rj£Wsa &j( injicash; igll^ a bil||^)esilde , *,ld"by his^order, m-vkiug in,ajr£44. It l < baa? Been^said^tfiaf t He bill' had not' matured; r 'bJltSieve rtheless it had b3en endorsed r ai^d cashed, and with regard 'to the filfo'giv^d/ by his" order, it was quite ; :eleag:*thaChe liad> the the amount^ and ; it^eould, have gone to pay the. Bank of New Zealand just as well as '^tnfeeriSlitOr'whd' did' receive it It-would '-bethus'scen that the defendant had £23 fis 9d for his own usei beside £21 which te gave to other creditors, 'making L 44 m all^ or'sobe j LIS m ©f tbe^juda;m«nt summon*, ;and he (counsel) would most Respectfully submit{that defendant bad had ample means of liquidating the claim. . ■ •*£-'wi.tE'-A f .it?vi_.. ... r — Mr.~Hawkins-addressed-the-^ouit ' at some length asserting that counsel for the plain^£Mla^iin%4e,Btatements which were not^^ne^ourKy the^evidense. and iajt?njurting; that the -^ngthy examination and of M/ri Perkins had taken place Mr^^^fd v^iot s2t ; .sfied tbat/I^naant|fhad haji|itip his power! to baj^^p^o^e^hqle a^mouht^and therefore^he^lp^djittsHneto grant an order. However; defendant bad stattd m his exann^tio^tbalbevWjqui^be^able to pay m the course of ; a !ewpVoJ^ months, and he|wpßtld there_fb?e prefer to adjourn the case id" ordered. give^himrap opportunity of t flomg fsa^*Hjad the^judgment been tha|^e-«mflfuTitTßbbul3 L be J^iid by instalments, hesejQUJd diav£n?ade an order, for * r -4)bejße was "Sufficient evidence rto-prove .: ,th*f- defendant had i received'- to : bim4o •pay : a-portion u though not f.. IPeyJhpie^oT the? cl Hfim':X : . •• £•• >;'? % "s ■ Would ,?jn^blpreWK"the^om-t- should then make an order fqr the sum to be paid by j ".^JUlmeiitf Ite^eijif^t; were only six-■.pencqa^montb/--Mr. Staite was a prioa a large practice, and ■.- itjW««| imply ridieulons'to think be would not r b^ jtt s} popitjoix to pay the amount. I ■„.■.'.M r^\\£aid conpjdefed .he had. no power to concede to Mr. Perkins' Acquest, bbt . gpn)d- i s^Qur.n,the:-«ie-;fbr. one-monch to^eSa^e defendant ;^ c>mpl^ with tie