MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume IV, Issue 241, 25 September 1914, Page 6

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

HASTINGS. (Before Mr. S. E. McCarthy, S.M.) ALLEGED THEFT. Percy Gascoigne was charged, that on the 31st July he did steal an overcoat, the property of A. R. Don. valued at £3 17 6, On the application of the police accused vias remanded to the 3rd October, bail be ing fixed in his own recognisance of £5O. ami two studies cl’ £25 each. RIDING ON FOOTPATH. J. M. Thornby. fur riding a bicycle on the footpath in Rivcrslea road, was fined 20,- and costs 7,-. The Magistrate commented on the practice of riding on footpaths, especiall.v women.

ASSAULT. WilLam O Neil’ was charged with assaulting W. Marven on the Hastings rail wav platform on October 14th. This was a carriers’ dispute, in which an altercation took place over the right of plying for hire on the station platform. .After lengthy evidence had been heard, .he defendant was convicted and fined 40. and costs, or m default seven days’ imprisonment. RESERVED JUDGMENT. MILBURN v. ANDERSON. This was a claim kr £93 4 being damages alleged lo nave oe-n sus tatneil by plaintiff m consequence of the al.egea breach by defendant ol a contract between nim and tilt plaintiff for the purchase of treeholii house property in the Borough ol Hastings, of which plaintiff is the owner. His Worship gave judgment for defendant, together with 4.10 2,2 costs. DAVIS v. TANNER.

This was a claim for £lO9, in re spent of an alleged breach by attendant of an aneged auiy said lo be owing by defendant as vendor to plaintiff tor part of the "naiquitudder” estate, situate in the Borough of Hastings, in that me defendant failed to disclose to plain-

tiff the fact that the house ana outbuildings on the said estate had never been connected with the borough system of drainage. Mr. Doran appeared for plaintiff and Mr. Humphries for defendant. His Worship gave judgment for defendant with costs £l9 19,6. In the course of his judgment the Magis trate said where a vendor sei s a house and adjoining land situate in a borough having a drainage system with which it can compel iiousehold-

ers to connect, and such house is to the knowledge of the vendor not connected with the borough drainage system and the vendor fails to dis close the fact of such non-connec-tion, but is not guilty of any active concealment, such vendor is not liable in damages to the purchase for such non-disclosure, there being no duty resting on the vendor to make such disclosure. C IVIL CASES.

Judgment was given for defendants in the following undefended cases.—R. Sorensen v. Tete Ratana. £lO and costs 28 6; »S. T. Tong v. Teddy Retima, £lO and costs 28 6; Miller and Muir v. Porokura £3 10 - and costs 26 -: B. C. McCormick v. H. Joseph £3 10 - and costs 15 -; J. A. Mi ler v. Patrick Dooney £7 5 - and costs 19 6; H. M. Wilson v. J. Russell. £1 1 - and costs 15.-; F. Clifton v. Ratima Hakopa, £7 5/and costs 2S 6. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. E. Pratt v. J. Cathro. claim 6, -. to

be paid forthwith, in default two days' imprisonment; X.Z. Loan and Mercantile Co. v. Hemi Ptiriri, claim £l4 1 2. to be paid forthwith, in default one month’s imprisonment.