WANGANUI DISTRICT COURT

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XII, Issue 826, 4 February 1868, Page 2

WANGANUI DISTRICT COURT

Saturday, February 1. [Before His Honor C. R. D. Ward.] The criminal business of this court opened to-day at the hour of ten when a petty jury was empanelled. There was, however, “a clean bill,” and the Deputy-Sheriff, D. S. Durie, Esq., R M., had the pleasure of presenting his Honor with a pair of white kid gloves. Immediately after the jury were released from further attendance, and the Court rose to resume on Monday for the hearing of civil cases. Monday, February 3. The Court was opened this morning at ten o’clock. His Honor the District Judge was accompanied to the Bench by the Deputy-Sheriff. BROWN AND CHRISTIE V. JAMES ATKINSON. Mr Perham appeared for plantitf ; no defence. ' Judgment for £47 16s 6d amount of debt and costs. COL. MCDONNELL V. COLL. MCDONNELL. Col. McDonnell said —I am a LieutColonel ; the defendant is indebted to me in the sum of £BS 10s on a promissory note. Nonsuited, because the stamp was not cancelled with the initials of the party signing it. T. W. GUDGEON V. HARRY WILLIAMS. Mr H. J. Perham for plaintiff; and Mr H. B. Roberts for defendant. Ciaim, £35 10s. 6d. Mr Perham, having opened the case, called the following witnesses :

Thomas Wayth Gudgeon, auctioneer, deposed ; I held a sale on the 31st October at Mr Blake’s, Victoria Avenue, at which 5 sets of harness were sold to defendant. The conditions of sale were, cash under £2O, and over that amount approved discountable bills. Defendant got delivery of them that same evening, saying he would settle next day, but I did not see him for five or six days. A few days after I again asked him, when he said he had £ls in his pocket then, and promised to go and make up the amount. 1 did not seen him again for a week, when he said that, according to the conditions of sale he was entitled to a bill at 3 months. I told him that I would take it —an approved discountable bill. He came into my office and my clerk wrote out a form co sign. He got J ames Keen, a carter, to endorse it, but on presenting it at the Bank of New Zealand it was worthless. I had told defendant to wait till I came back from the Bank, but when I returned he was gone. My clerk went and brought him into my office where I told him the bill was worthless and tore it up in his presence, I had seen him after about payment, but at last he refused and said he would not pay till he was compelled. Cross-examined by Mr Roberts: The goods were sold as they appeared. Some time after he got belly-bands and reins. I cannot say positively that my clerk was present when the bill was destroyed. Charles Henry Blake, saddler, deposed to plaintiff holding a sale on his premises in October last, at which defend int was a purchaser. Each set of harness comprised a collar, bridle, water reins, saddle, britchen, and back-chain. He was not in the habit of putting driving reins with the sets of harness from his shop.

John Caruthers Nicholson, in the serof Mr Blake, deposed that on the day of sale he had seen defendant examining the several lots previous to buying them. Mr Roberts addressed the court for his client. Harry Williams, defendant, deposed that he had purchased five sets of harness at Mr Blake’s sale. He had offered payment next day, less discount and 32s deducted for parts of harness that were wanting. Subsequently he received portions of the harness and plaintiff proposed that he should give a bill for the amount, approving of Keen endorsing it. They all went into plaintiff’s sale room, and there plaintiff’s clerk wrote a bill which was illegally drawn and torn up ; the clerk then wrote another and this he (defendant) signed, Keen endorsed, and plaintiff accepted ; witness giving him 2s to pay for the stamps. The bill was not stamped when begot it.

His Honor here intimated that ohe case for the defence was at an end—the bill defendant had given as payment was not stamped until after acceptance, which was an illegal instrument. The conditions of saLe were cash or approved endorsed acceptances, neither of which had been complied with. Judgment was given for amount and costs. WILLIAM PATERSON V. FREDERICK WHITLOCK. Claim £9B 10s. Mr H. B. Roberts for plaintiff ; Mr Keon for defence. William Paterson deposed—ln the month of September last he had a stack of hay upon which subject he saw defendant who came to plaintiff’s house about it. Mr Paterson wanted £5 10s a ton. He eventually agreed to let defendant have it at £4 10s to take the stack as being 33 tons, and to be a money transaction. This, defendant agreed to, and said he would give the money, but did not stay that day to pay the cheque. Next day defendant began to remove the hay while plaintiff was ill and confined to his room. On the first opportunity Mr Paterson went to plaintiff to ask for the cash. He got £SO and the rest promised on the following day. The following day came and passed and so did a week or more, and the remainder was unpaid, so that plaintiff put the matter in his Solicitor’s hands, and

stopped any more of the hay being taken. Cross-examined b3 y Mr Keon : The hay was not to be weighed but sold in the lump —taking the stack for 33 tons. The hay was worth £6 or £7 in town. John James Croker deposed to being present when defendant negotiated about the hay, but could state nothing deiinite as to the terms agreed on. Horace Broughton deposed he was a butcher at Rangitikei ; he had ridden with defendant to Mr Paterson’s and was present when defendant agreed to take the stack for thirty-three tons at £4 10s, and it was to be a cash tranaction. Robert Lyall Christie, livery stablekeeper, deposed to having been in negotiation for the stack of hay in question. He had been willing to take it for thirty-three tons. Defendant afterwards told witness that he had bought it. Mr Keon, having addressed the court for his client, called Frederick Whitlock, defendant, hotelkeeper, who deposed that he had purchased the stack of hay from plaintiff for £4 10s a ton, no other agreement, but he understood it to be payment on delivery. He bad men who contracted to cart at so much per ton. A few days after purchasing it he paid £SO on account and promised auother £SO at the end of the week, but heard no further demand made that day; had had only three or four tons away at that time, altogether he got fourteen or fifteen tons. He (witness) was afterwards told that the delivery of the hay was stopped. He never inquired further of it. He had been selling it at £7 10s a ton in town. He had in consequence of the stoppage to buy other hay for which he paid £6 a ton. Cross-examined : There was no agreement that it should be paid on delivery, no agreement at all, only my taking it for thiry-three tons. David Mouk, deposed that he had contracted for the removal of the hay to Mr Whitloc'v’s. Witness had weighed one ton and averaged the rest. Joseph Robin, farmer, helped to remove the hay till stopped by plaintiff, who told him he must see Mr Roberts about the matter as the payment was not forthcoming. Judgment was given for amount and costs.

The several cases Howe v Pawson and Pawson v Howe were referred to arbitration, the last order of the court for arbitration in these cases having been defective in that no power was given to the arbitrators to examine witnesses on oath. The other cases were settled out of court, so that the above closed the business.