FEILDING S.M. COURT.

Feilding Star, Volume I, Issue 273, 23 May 1907, Page 4

FEILDING S.M. COURT.

WEDNESDAY. (Before Mr A. D. Thomson, S.M.) On the Court resuming after lunch Herman Burr continued his evidence and stated that the boy had been used to driving the horse. Johanna Burr deposed: I was driving home from Halcombe in a gig with my mother on the night of the accident; it was a starlight night; the accident occurred between the cutting and the filling; the horse is a quiet one, and when the accident took place the horse was walking; we were on the left-hand side of the road; Peterson was on his righthand side; I could see him about four chains away; he was cantering towards me, and pulled across the road in front of me; the right shaft struck into the horse's right shoulder; our gig fell down in the front and my mother was thrown out; after that we pulled the trap off the road on to the left side; I have been driving about four years. To Mr Carty: We walked home, about three miles from the scene of the accident; the road where the accident took place is 16 feet wide: my hone fell on its knees; I was driving with a light rein; when the other horse ran into us it swerved the trap right on to the other side : I helped Petersen to pull the trap oft the road; the shaft went about four inches into Peterson's horse; there was a little mark on my horse's knee; I first saw Peterson's horse when I was in the cutting; he was about four chains away; he was cantering; the accident took place on level country. Bertha Burr deposed (by interpreter): We left Halcombe about 9.45; it wa sa starlight night ; my son was driving; we met Peter Petersen, who was riding on the left-hand side, when we came out of the little cutting ; he was nearly four chains away when I saw him; Petersen was on his wrong side and we were on our left-hand side; all at once he was against the shafts; he waß galloping; the accident happened between the cutting and filling; I was thrown out and hurt; Petersen asked me if I was hurtj I don't know who put the gig back. This closed the case. Mr Sandilands contended that there was no by-law in the Oroua County with reference to carrying lights at night. Mr Carty quoted from several authorities bearing on the case. The Magistrate ruled that defendant's trap was on the wrong side of the road, and it was negligence not to have lights. Judgment was f'ven for plaintiff for £30 and costs 6 3s. TWO LAND AGENTS AT ISSUE. Norman L. Gurr, land agent, proceeded against J. T. Barry and Co. for £15, half-share of commission on the sale of a section. Mr S. W. Fitzherbert appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Trewin for defendants. G. F, Newsome deposed: I am a settler, residing at Dannevirke; I had a property in Manchester-street, Feilding; I put it in the hands of four commission agents, including Gurr and Barry; in October I took it out of the other agents' hands, and left it in Gurr's hands; soon after I took it out of Gurr's hands, and after Christmas I put it in Gurr's hands to sell it; I was away when the sale took place; I received a telegram from my wife, when I was at Pongaroa; when I got home my wife handed me certain telegrams from Barry and Co.; I was surprised to find the property was sold ; I told Barry he nad no business to sell the property, and it would not have to be a sale: Barry said the money had been paid down, and my wife would be liable, as she had used my name; my wife sent a telegram to Barry, stating the price for the property; on 14th January my wife sent a telegram to Barry and Co. stating £900 was the lowest I would take for it; Mr Gurr was not trying to get me into a baker's business; Gurr had no authority to reduce the price of the property to £850; I took the property out of Barry's hands in October, by telling him to cross it off his books ; it is not a fact that I was constantly at Barry's office asking him to push the sale; I told Gurr I wanted £900 clear for the property; my wife sent a letter to Barry saying I was away; I wanted 'a reduction on the commission from Barry; I wrote to Gurr when the property was sold, and told him to look to Barry for' commission ; Gurr never sent me any account foi commission. Plaintiff was non-suited, costs allowed to defendants £2 2s. THOSE UNIFORMS. Saywell and others v. Matthews and Linton. This was the case against two members of the Fire Brigade, who had resigned, and did not give up their uniforms, etc. • Mr Ongley appeared for the Brigade, and Mr Haggitt for the defendants. George Saywell deposed: I am Captain of the Feilding Volunteer Fire Brigade; the Brigade has been darned on continuously since its inception; none of its members have opposed this action; the Brigade has not sufficient uniforms; they were asked to return the uniforms, and refused. To Mr Haggitt : I heard Matthews had handed his uniform in to the Council ; other uniforms were handed in to the Council, and got back to the Brigade, but I don't know how; the demand was made for the uniform on 29th January; the Brigade is responsible to the people of Feilding for the property; the Borough Council gave some property to the Brigade; the gum boots were purchased by the Council and given to the Brigade; the Brigade received a subsidy from the Council; the Brigade own the lot of the property claimed ; the Brigade has rules governing the members; the Brigade is not a registered body; if a member leaves the district, we give him a clearance; those members who left the Brigade, and did not leave the town, were not given clearances; the Brigade don't insist on the claim for damages. To Mr Ongley: A clearance is a recommendation to an outside Brigade. F. R. Fitzgerald deposed: I am secretary of the Feilding Fire Brigade; on 17th December Matthews' resignation was accepted; witness read the minutes of the meeting held on that night, which stated: "As none of the resignations balloted for received the support of three-fifths of the members present. Captain Cleland stated that he had no other course open to him but to declare the resignations duly accepted." The members who had their names attached to the summons were all members of the Brigade prior to the 2nd February, the date on which notice had been sent out to those who retained their uniforms. He was the official recognised by the Association. A yearly report was supplied by him, but he did not keep a copy of it. He always stated in the Association's printed list that the Feilding Borough Council were the owners of the plant. Mr Thomson here expressed the opinion that the men sued were simply bailees, and the property possessed by them should have been returned by them to the Brigade officials from whom they got it. Witness, continuing, said Matthews was entitled to a clearance if he had applied for it; it was the Assocition rules that provided for a clearance; some of the members who resigned had applied for a clearance. Mr Haggitt suggested to the witness at this point that there had been a lot of illfeeling over certain matters in the Brigade. Mr Thomson remarked that it was not the way to prevent it by retainingthe uniforms. Mr Haggitt contended that the Brigade was not a corporate body, and it was necessary that each one of the men prosecuting should be personally willing to do so. He considered it would destroy the corporate capacity of the Brigade if it was shown that anyone of them were unwilling plaintiffs. F. Matthews, one of the defendants, said he had been a member of the Brigade, and remembered receiving a demand for the return of the articles mentioned in the summons. "H* had_ returned them to the Town Cleric, \rho had subsequently refused to hand them back to him and he, therefore, could not now return them* "

To Mr Ongley: Handed in the goods on May 6th to the Town Clerk ; never told anyone to call at his home for the articles and take them back to the Brigade; he took them to the Clerk himself; he admitted he had told Mr Ongley that he would try and get the uniform, etc., from the Clerk and return them to him; he did not get them, and he under-' stood the Fire Board was formed and that he (witness) was in duty bound to return them to the Council. Mr Thomson said the goods had obained by defendant from the Brigade, a member of which he had ceased to be on his own application, and he ought to have returned them. In regard to the question raised by Mr Haggitt, re the right to sue on the part of the Brigade, there had been no dissentient amongst the members who were in the position of plaintiffs. Judgment was, therefore, given for return of the uniforms: costs were allowed against defendants. The uniforms to be returned within 24 hours or the cost (£7 6s 6d) of uniform to be paid. Judgment waß consented to in the second case, less 16s for gum boots, which were the property of Mr Liuton.