PATEA.

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 19 October 1925, Page 10

PATEA.

(From Our Own Correspondent.)

MAGISTRATE’S COLR,T

Tlie monthly 'sitting of the Magistrate's Court was held here on Friday, Mr. J. S. Barton, S.M., presiding. The Truant Inspector proceeded against Mr. Joe Lucas lor lailing to send his children, Richard and William, to school. The defendant did not appear, and a fine of 10s and costs 7s was imposed in both cases. The Truant Inspector also proceeded against Joseph Signal for failing to send his daughter to school. Defendant pleaded not guilty, but a fine of 10s with costs 7s was imposed. Judgment was given lor plaintiff with costs in the following cases: McCarty and Hunger v. F. Meyers, £5 8s 3d; J. W. Hills v. T. Jensen £7; J. Harold v. A. V. Miller, £9 Bs' sd. The case I). Jones v. 1). Calder was adjourned iby order of the court to November 13. John Hurley, of Hurleyville, proceeded against E. Sattler, of the same district, for 'breach of warrant in connection with the sale of a cow, and claimed £4 Gs, difference between the amount paid for the cow and that realised on re-sale. Mr. Rutherford appeared lor the plaintiff and Mr. T. Ei. Roberts for the defendant. In giving evidence the plaintiff isaid that on the Sunday previous to Sattler’s sale he .saw the deiendant and asked him which were his best cows, remarking that, as he required six or seven more cows,' he was prepared to give a fair price for them at the sale. The defendant pointed out six or seven which he said were his best, and also gave the dates of calving and said they rwere all jsound. At the sale? continued plaintiff, he bought seven cows recommended by the defendant; the auctioneer announced that Sattler would give the calving date of ea.cn cow submitted and would also ipon.it out any defects. Then the cow in question was brought forward, Sattler gave the time of calving as “early in August.’' After the cow had been on his property for a few days he noticed her running around the paddock, and also again about three weeks after, which satisfied him that the cow was not in calf, so lie sold her by auction and .she onl yrealised £2 Ms, and it was the difference he was now claimIn cross-examination, plaintiff, said that he told Settler he would hid up for the cows if he (defendant) would o\ive a list of his best cows, and was now inclined to think that the best cows were not pointed out to him. He did not claim to be a good judge of cows. He believed Sattler when he v iU -e the calving dates, but had hear' since the sale that Sattler had stated that no dates were kept and the dates o-.iven were “faked” ones. He did no. remember whether the auctioneer read out the usual conditions before the Lewes, auctioneer, said he was present at the sale when Sattler’s cows were sold. Mr Chishom was the auctioneer, and described the cows before the sale, and Sattler did so during the sale. The auctioneer said the sale was being conducted under the usual conditions of sale, and that the vendor would give calving date and point, out any defect as each cow was submitted. In cross-exnnuination, witness said that sales are made every week where, if a cow is said to be- in caf, j 1 1)” proved not to be. she is* returned to the vendor, . , In giving judgment, the magistrate said it was a great pity these disputes took place between farmers. The conditions of sale were always posted up, and even tben farmers are continually coming to the Court, to settle these disputes. He was quite satisfied that the representatios made by defendant amounted to a warrant, but in view of the fact that the same were not commited to writing, as required by the conditions of sale, plaintiff must be non suited