MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 20 July 1928, Page 7

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

VFSTKR-D AY IS SITTI NG

OONULUDI N-G BUS! N ESS

The fortnightly sitting of the Magistrate’s ’Court at Hawera before Mr *J. . Barton, S.M., was concluded yesterday. Pleas of guilty on two counts to breaches of the Apiaries Act were made by Stephen Matthews, of To R-oti, the charges- -being that in May lie did keep bees in an unregistered apiary and that lie kept bees in other than frame hives. The inspector of apiaries pointed out that the maximum penalty for keeping bees in improper hives had been increased recently from £5 to £SO. Owing to- the likelihood-under such conditions of disease developing in the hives and its spread through swarming to other apiaries the box hives of the kind kept by defendant and not fitted with loose frames wa-s a serious menace. None but loose frame, hives were permiissable. Convictions and fines of £1 on each charge were entered with costs totalling £1 2-s. SAGES AFTER HOURS.

For allowing cigarette,s t-o be sold at his shop during the weekly half-holi-day, F. H. Ollerenshaw, who did notappear, was fined £3 and 10s costs- with expenses incurred by a witness amounting to 17s Bd. T , Evidence was given by William John Berryman, inspector of factories that when he visited the .shop during a recent afternoon at a time when the premises were Required to be- closed for the sale of cigarettes and tobacco. She was able to. purchase a packet of cigarettes. Defendant had been convicted for a, similar offence in February, 1927.

VEXERINARIAN’-S claim fails

Re-served judgment in favour of Emily Hayward, or Normanby, was given on the claim for £2 2s preferred by Oswald Gladstone Lambert, lately of Hawera, but now of Auckland, for services .rendered as a veterinary practitioner in treating a cow during October, 1927. At the hearing of the case at the last sittings of the court Mr G. J. Bay ley appeared for plaintiff and Mr L. A. Taylor for defendant. Defendant disputed the claim on the grounds of alleged negligence and incompetence on the part of plaintiff. , In discussing the facts the Magistrate said plaintiff had certainly carried out the operation .successfully up to a certain point, but on hearing of evidence of Air Marshall, veterinary practitioner, of Hawera, he come to the conclusion that, having commenced the operation, plaintiff ought not to have left it in an incomplete stage. To so leave the animal was not in accordance with good veterinary practice and his Worship was satisfied from the large experience of the witness Marshall and the authorities quoted bv counsel that a- further operation would have relieved the- animal. In the evidence for plaintiff it had been suggested he left the animal believing there was a- possibility it would complete the operation from natural causes, but judging by the steps already taken by plaintiff it did not appear probable that- the cotv would deliver the calf unaided and the Alagis-tra-te- was inclined strongly to the opinion that interference by one of the members, of the Hayward family had materially influenced plaintiff in leavino* the- operation in completed l and practically resulted in Bis having throw*) up the job in disgust. It the manner of Hayward junior on that occasion had been anything like Ims overbearing attitude displayed in the witness box it would undoubtedly bare exercised' a considerable influence rn the direction, indicated. ~ , Defendant was allowed £1 Us solicitor’s fees and £1 Is witnesses expenses. ■