MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Feilding Star, Volume 2, Issue 136, 27 March 1924, Page 8

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mr R. M. Watson. S.M.) POLICE CASES. J. Treanor. X. Williams, K. Thompl- - and P. Sambo, four young natives, were charged with taking a motor car at Aorangi. the property of Mr Thompson. Mr Pagan appeared for the first two accused, and all pleaded guilty. Sergt. Cahill stated that the car bad been taken during the Carnival proceedings at .Aorangi, and thought Sambo was the principal offender, as he was the only one of the- accused who was able to drive.

The accused wove further charged with taking a car "from Halcombe belonging to Mr \Y. S. Page and joyriding in it through Marton, Bulls, and other places. Air Pagan said that hie instructions were that Sambo was the "principal offender, and the other accused were led by him. Sambo was lined £o on each charge, and the others 20k and costs and each to pay Pis for Mr Page's expenses, ! The .Magistrate stale- that the accused, were liable to imprisonment for two months, and they and others must understand that, cars and other property must be left alone. ' James I.udeman was charged with exposing lice infested sheep at the Fcilding yards and fined 20s and casts. On the same charge, W. 1). I'ort. James Ale Ewan, and Albeit .Matthews were lined a similar amount, and I). C. Forlong 40s and costs. A prohibition order was granted against Charles Edward Weston. CIVIL CASES. Judgment was given for plaintiff in the, following undefended cases: Fcilding Borough Council v. W. Y. Fowles, £4 2s 7(1; Harford and Sons Limited v. Charles Hartley; C. E. Wildbore v. IP .1. Thompson, £l2 os; Levin and Co.. Ltd., v. Mrs B. Duker, £7 2s 3d; YV. Raywortb v. John Edwards. 12; IT. S. Street v. 0. Laing, £3 14s; John Power v. 0. \V. McKenzie, £8 As 7d; T. Russell v. J. M. Paul, £3O Is 4d; R. Edelsten, E. Irwin and fsdalc v. C. M. McKemdo, £IBO. Judgment summons.—D. L. Barrett v. Fletcher, to pay £l3 7s (3d, in default 14 days' imprisonment tin-* less £1 per month be paid; F. C. Hogg v. J. W. Lucan (Glen Oroua), £o'i 5s 9d -ordered to pay £•"> per month in default two months in gaol. DEFENDED CASE. Abraham and Williams sued Wm, Gibson, Kawa Kawa lid., for £7O 18s Gd, amount owing by De May Dalkemade, his son-in-law, on stock" bought by the latter under an alleged guarantee that the defendant would pay the amount. Mr Elliott appeared for plaintiff and Mr Graham for defendant. De May 'Dalkema.de stated in evidence that he purchased stock in 1920, at Levin, from the plaintiff company, and prior to the sale showed them a letter from the Lauds Department stating that there was a credit in Dalkomade's account of £169 in October, 1918, with the Department, and he bad not drawn any of the amount between these dates. Witness did not have in his possession the letter produced from Air Gibson, and did not produce it to .Mr Day. He received an account from Abraham and Williams, for the stock, addressed AY. Gibson, per de May. He knew that Mr Gibson had paid part of the account, but it was his money,. and be had also part of the account. Cross-examined by Mr Graham: He received the letter from W. Gibson in''July. 1919, for the purchase oi stock from the Loan and Mercantile. After the sale, the auctioneers' men came and removed the stock as they found witness could not purchase stock, being a returned soldier. It "was then witness saw defendant and obtained the order produced. Later, the auctioneer offered the stock to .hfh'i. at a lesser figure. He told Air Day the stock was for his farm at Kopane. Did not mention Gibson's 'name, although the letter did. Day

asked if Gibson passed all his stock and witness said "Yes, occasionally." Did not have Gibson's letter at the time of the stock wale at Levin, having returned it to Gibson. Received the invoice produced from Abraham and Williams in March, 1923. Was sued by plaintiffs for the amount of the claim, £147 14s lOd, on June 14, 1921, and this included the whole of the money in this action. Mr Gibson paid to Abraham and Williams £75, which witness gave. Ho had told Bridge to pay the money to Gibson for him to pay it to plaintiffs on his behalf. A further sum of £ls was paid in the same way through D. H. McLean. Apart from the £169 at credit with the Lands Department he had sold £IOO worth of hay, and other sums,, and had a running account with the Department. Previous to the sale in question, he telephoned the Commissioner of Crown Lands, who said it would ha all right for witness to buy £IOO to £2OO of stock. Cross-examined by Mr Elliott: After the sale the accounts W.ere sent to the Department at Wellington for

payment, and were on the usual printed forms. Cyril V. Day agent for the plaintiff company at Manakau stated that he had known the previous witness before the sale and the stock worp knocked down to hirn direct. After the sale witness approached De May and asked him about- payment. He produced an order, signed by Gibson, and asked him to charge it to the latter. Could not say that the order produced was the actual one shown at the time. Denied that the previous witness had shown him a letter from the Department of Lands. Another witness was present when the order from Gibson was banded to him.

Cross-examined by Mr Graham: Witness could not remember "the exact terms of Gibson's letter, neither could he remember whether it was a general order. Could not remember whether it was a general guarantee or not, but it did bind Gibson. Could not remember whether the order he law was on Gibson's headed paper. The ordinary custom was to charge the purchaser and under their system of book-keeping the invoice would !>o sent out from their Palmerston branch to which the account had been transferred. He did not know that his company had sued De May for the amount in dispute. Could not .ray whether there was any date on the document De .May produced. Did not usually accept orders 18 months old, and could not explain why he acted on this one when .so stale.

Mr Graham asked for an explicit answer to the following question: Assuming the order produced was the one you saw, can you explain why, when the order was 17 months old, you did not make further enquiry? Witness could-not answer. Neither would be admit to the Alagistrate that he saw the date on the order, nor explain why he acted on it. Could not explain why the account to De May had been sent out.

Re-examined: Auctioneers must enter the 'purchaser's name in the column provided for that purpose and adjustments' are made afterwards. In his opinion an authority 12 or 18 months old would put him on his guard, but it would make a difference if he knew the parties well.

To Mr Graham: It was the custom only to retain authorities for .special Males, and not general ones. S. J. Sievers, representing Abraham and Williams at Otaki, stated he had entered the sale notes on the day of the sale. Afterwards he received instruction from Mr Day to state that the stock were to be invoiced to Mr W. Gibson.' He did not peruse the order.

After the luncheon adjournment Mr Elliott stated that be- bad been misinsfructed in that he had not been advised'that the plaintiff company had obtained judgment against Do May for the amount concerned in the claim. Plaintiffs were therefore non-suited with costs.