MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume VI, Issue 267, 27 October 1916, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

AVAIPAAA'A

(Own Correspondent.) Mr. Kenrick. S.M., presided over the monthly sitting of the Court on Thursday and the following cases were dealt with : — CIVIL CASES. Judgment by default was entered for plaintiffs in the following actions Hallenstein Bros. v. AV. Hasler, .£1 15/6, costs 7/-; Booth and Macdonald v. Reha Pahreihe, £l3, costs £29 6; H. Limbrick v. J. H. Butler, £9O 12 6, costs £4 3,'-; G. Elford v. J. H. Butler. £9O 12/6, costs £1 3'-. SC HOOL ATTEX DANCE. Mr. F. XV. Seaton, truant officer, proceeded against Mrs. Kennedy in respect to the irregular attendance of her grandson at the local school. The informant stated that the boy had a bad record for attendance and apparently was not under proper control. He submitted that the boy should be committed to an institution where he would be properly looked after.

Mr. AA’edde. for the defendant, said the boy's attendance of late i-.ad improved and was only really bad when Mrs. Kennedy was laid up. To send the boy to an industrial school, he considered, would do him harm. The minimum fine of 2'- was imposerl. the magistrate declining to allow expenses to the truant officer, and in doing so spoke strongly against the Education Boards appointing truant officers at a remuneration which compelled them t-> look to the court for expenses.

EXCEEDING THE SPEED LIMIT

John Crawford appeared on the al.ovp charge. Constable O’Halloran stated that defendant was driving a car through the borough at 25 to 30 miles per hour. His Worship commented that it did not need a by-law to tell him that the speed was excessive and he intended dealing severely with such cases. A fine of £3 with costs 7 - was imposed. DISPUTING A PURCHASE. Alban Pratley sued C. Whyman for £3 10 -, the value of a gun which it was alleged defendant agreed to purchase. Mr. Strang appeared for plaintiff and Mr. Wedde for defendant.

Plaintiff, in his evidence, stated that defendant approached him at the opening onf the shooting season. 1916. for the loan of the gun, and he replied that he would sell at £3 lo,'-. to which defendant remarked, “All right I I’ll take it.” Five months after this he asked for payment. to which defendant replied that he was hard up. Defendant brought the gun back that night and put it inside the door, but was told that he did so at Ills own risk.

Defendant stated that he bought the gun subject to a trial. He adniited having the loan of it on previous occasions.

After lengthy evidence, his Worship said the case was one of oath against oath. The one had the impression that he was buying subject to the gun proving satisfactory, and the other that it was a straight out sale and there was nothing in the evidence to prove otherwise. The plaintiff would be non-suited with court costs 2-'-. Defendant agreed to forego his solicitor’s costs. PROVING OF A PARTNERSHIP. The adjourned case was proceeded with of Williams and Kettle v. Poku and Rupaea for £25 for goods supplied. The defence on the previous hearing was that there was no partnership and that Rupaea was not concerned in the case.

Sir. Kent, representing the defendants. said he did not think it necessary for Rupaea to attend and had notified plaintiff’s solicitors to that effect.

Mr. Strang, for plaintiffs, submitted that he had every right to cross-examine Rupaea, whose examination had concluded at the rising of the court at the previous sitting. The magistrate said counsel for plaintiffs had closed his ease. Moveover plaintiffs must prove a partnership to succeed.

Mr. Strang said he had hoped to have done so in his cross-examina-tion of Rupaea. but the absence of witness prevented this. Mr. Kent said the law was clear in partnership cases and therefore did not think it necessary to address the court.

Mr. Strang contended that the plaintiffs were warranted in presuming that Rupaea was a member of the firm.

The magistrate submitted that no evidence had been shown that Rupaea was connected with the business.

After quoting legal authorities in support of iris contentions, Mr. Strang applied for a non-suit. This was agreed to by his AA r orship with costs amounting to £4 15/-.

HASTINGS. FRIDAY. OCTOBER 27th, 1916. (Before Mr. W. G. Kenrick, S.M.) Alice Warren, baker, was charged with that on September 11th, while in charge of one Clarence Gordon Warren, a person suffering from an infectious disease, to wit, diphtheria, did allow the same Clarence Warren to expose himself in a shop without taking proper precautions against the spread of the infection, and on the same date did engage in the preparation of and delivery for sale of food after having been in recent contact with a person suffering from an infectious disease. Mr. E. J. W. Hallett, for defendant. pleaded not guilty. Sergeant Hogan prosecuted on behalf of the Health Department. Robert Nairn, medical practitioner, deposed that he attended the child, and found him suffering from a slight attack of diphtheria. On the 3rd September the child was much better and on the 4th witness considered the child quite well and he gave him a week to get clear of the infection, but he told her not to let the child go into the shop until he was clear of the infection. He considered Mrs, Warren clear of the infection on September 11th and gave her perndssion to go into the shop. The child was quite well and clear of infection on September Bth. F. B. Gardner, Inspector of Health, deposed that on 11th September he received a notification from Dr. Nairn stating that Mrs. Warren’s son was suffering from diphtheria. He visited Mrs. Warren’s house and found she was not at hom,e. He visited the shop and found Mrs. Warren behind the counter serving a customer. The boy Clarence was standing at her elbow. To Mr. Hallet: The notice was dated 4th and witness received it on the 11th.

Mr. Hallett contended that no offence had been committed, as defendant had acted quite, bona fide in ihc matter Hrs Worship caret the evidence was clear that defendant was clear of the infection on September 11th.

Defendant did not act properly in allowing the child to go into the shop. He would dismiss the first charge, but defendant had broken the law in the other instance of allowing the boy in the shop. On the second charge defendant would be fined 20/- and costs 19/6. J. C. Tosswill on a charge of driving a motor car over a railway crossing at- Hastings in front of a train was convicted and fined 20,'- and costs 7/-.

Robert Barchain pleaded guilty in neglecting to send his two children to school and was consisted and fined 2/- and 7'- costs. CIVIL CASES.

Judgment was enteredfor plaintiffs in the following undefended civil cases Thompson Bros. v. J. H. Sykes, £1 10/10, costs 11/-; Stevens and Son v. Keniau Browne, £22 B'9, costs 54/-; W. Cook v. AV.Gillies, 11/6. costs 10/-; R. S. Spensley v. R. Maneana. £43 18/6, costs £3 9/6; Carlisle, McLean, Scannel and A\ r ood v. J. T. AVilson, £l4 16/-. costs 32 6; G. A\ r . Brownhill v. J. S. Olsen, £139 6/-, costs £6 10/6 ; Maddison and Co. v. J. Patterson, £1 0/8 costs 13/-; James Brown v. A. G. AVright, £5 5/5. costs 23'6. Judgment summons: J. C. Tosswill y. P. H. Tomoana, £l4 19/6, forthwith or 14 days’ imprisonment