MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 18504, 11 December 1923, Page 4

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Tubs da", December 11. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M) UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment, with costs, was given for plaintiffs in tho following undefended cases:—Taylors, Ltd. v. Douglas Knowler, £7 Is 6d, for goods supplied; Keith Ramsay v. Andrew Watson A I’Loan, £55 14s, for timber supplied: Thomas Nash Da Spong v. L. R. Smith, £2 10s, for hire of dress suit; Nostle’s and Anglo-Swiks Alilk Company v. Arthur F. Alunton, £1 6s 9d, amount of debt due; John Swan and Co. v. Weaver and Stevenson (Auckland), £1 15s Bd, for nickel carriage plates supplied; earno v. Ray, Winger, Ltd. (Taunmrunui), £4 10s lOcf, for nickel name plates and stencil letters supplied; Hubert S. Green (Darmevirke) \\ L. Karitiana (Bluff), £l4 3s 4d, amount of account stated; F. H. King and 00., Ltd. v. Alfred Mayno (Queenstown), £4l 15s 9d, for goods supplied; Para Rubber Company, Ltd. v. R. Teller (Maungatua), £25 IBs 9d, for goods supplied; Robert S. Black v. Kaka Perawitj (Weraroa), £9, money lent; Mollisong, Ltd. v. William J. Torrey (Cardrona), £4 16s 4d, balance ’due on drapery supplied; ALLocx.i Bros., Ltd. v. W. Pitches, £3 15s, for soap supplied; 11. Wise and Co. v. M. Rouls-ton (Pahiatua), £7 13s lOd, for advertising; same v. Fabian Sebastian Retrio (Auckland), £8 3s Bd, for advertising ; snmo v. G. O’Connor (Dargaville), £1 10s, for advertising; same v. Baddeley and Go. (Auckland), £7 Is 10d, for advertising and directory supplied; same v. Howard and White (To Puke), £3 10s, for advertisin; same v, L. J. Mills (Thames), £4 10a, for advertising; William Hasth v. Robert Munro, £l7, for rent due; 11. and Co. v. Alary Paterson (Ashburton), £2 10s, for directory supplied JUDGMENT SUAIMONS. A. A. Peterson (.Mr J. S, Sinclair) proceeded against Harold J. Salmon on * judgment summons for tho recovery of £8 10s.—The Alagistrate made an order ter tho amount claimed, with costs (1C»), in default five days’ imprisonment. SALE OF A COW. Alexander Brown Andrew (Kuri Bv-sh) claimed from A, W. Ross (Upper Junction) tho sum of £8 18s 6d, for a cow sold to plaintiff for £lO, guaranteed as sound, and sold at u loss of £0 Ills t-d, Ho remainder of the claim being for cost cf wdo a.M grazing. Mr Barrowclough appeared for thepklntifii, and Mr B. S. Irwin for tho defendant. Plaintiff s*id ho bought the cow it the yards, and when the bidding was going c-n no was assured by the owner that sle was sound and correct. When the cow calved lie discovered that there was a wound ia the udder which would not hold milk m one section. Witness wrote to tho vendor, but received no answer. Stronach, Morris, the agents who sold the cow at tho yards, later took witness to defendant’s place, and defendant offered to exchange the damaged cow for another one. He chose ono, and they arranged to change, but later on the defendant rang him up, said the deal was off, and claimed £5 for tho milk. Witness took the cow dawn to tlio yards, and sold it for £5 7s 6d, leas commission. It was not likely that Urn wound occurred while tho cow was in his possession. One teat was half tom off, and tho wound was healed over. Witness was living at Brockville at the time of tho sale.

Inspector Fountain, Government Stock Inspector, said he examined the cow at tho sale yards, at the instigation of the plaintiff, and the injury to the teat had evidently boon caused by barbed wire. From all appearances it had been done gome considerable time ago. Ho admitted that tho wound could have been made and have healed within five weeks.

Defendant said ho told the plaintiiT that bo would toko the ?ow and calf hack, and refund the money, if the plaintiff paid £b for the milk he bad got. There was Injury to the cow when ho vook It to the yards for sale. Marion Ilosa, wile of the defendant, eaid that she had milltod the oow, and there was no sign of injury to the tent before the oow was flold.

After reviewing the evidence, iho Magistrate oaid the plaintiff must be noaeuited. with sodinltor’a fee L£U*2*>L