Page 8 Advertisements Column 3

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XIV, Issue 281, 7 November 1924, Page 8

| T. CufiHlnahßM ass Da. AN ATTRACTIVE ROUGHCAST BUNGALOW. This property comprises SIX ROOMS Dining room, living room, three bedrooms, kitchen, bathroom, storeroom, built-in cupboards, wardrobes, and bookcases. Three porches, wash-house with copper and tubs, hot and cold j water, elec, light and gas. I The section comprises 36 Perches. J and is nicely laid out in lawns ana ' garden, the latter being well kept and 1 free from weeds. The building was erected by Messrs i H. H. Campbel) and Sons, which is a ! sufficient guarantee of efficient workI manship. I We can sell you this property at a 1 much lower price than it would cost to erect the buildings to-day, . AND we can quote the most favourable terms i with a small deposit. Further details on application to T- (CUNNINGHAM & QO. LAND AGENTS & AUCTIONEERS. QUEEN STREET. HASTINGS. WAIPAWA MAGISTRATE’S COURT. • BEFORE MR. R. W. DYER. S.M. (Own correspondent.) | . The following cases were dealt with • on Thursday:— i BREACH OF ARMS ACT. Ernest Limbrick. charged with having delivered possession of a firearm without the required permit, and in connection with the possession of a ■ firearm that he changed his address without notifying the police, was fined £1 with costs on the first charge, and • on the second* was convicted and discharged. UN LIGHTED MOTOR CARS. Henry Benjamin was charged with . leaving a car unattended on the road j without lights. Constable O’Halloran gave evidence that the occasion was whilst a ball wag held in the Municipal Theatre, and the car was parked on the side of the street. The defence was that.the car was left alight, but the lamps went out. A conviction was recorded and a fine of £1 and costs 7s i was imposed. : On a similar charge, Godfrey Bibby I was fined £1 and costs. The defendant pleaded that ho thought it not necessary for lights after 10 p.m. ' On similar charges C. Rhodes was fined £1 and c<ssts 15s: J. B. Hamilton £1 and 7s costs; M. C. Tansey £1 and 12 s costs; and T. E. Whelch, £1 and 7s costs. I WANDERING STOCK. ' J. Ellis, for allowing 75 cows and a bull to wander on the' Rangitoto road, ■ Takapau. was fined £7. costs £1 Ils. For allowing a horse to wander at ; Sherwood. Ashley Clinton, V. Peterson | was fined £2. costs £2. | James Brown, a drover, was also charged with allowing six or more head ,of cattle to wander. The defence was that the defendant’s children had left , the paddock gate open. His Worsliip , said that acting on a recent remark of his that small fines were not effective ; and considering this was a bad case he would impose a fine of £9 and costs. Norman Hickey and Arthur Hickey, for whom Mr. Hallet appeared, were , each charged in allowing stock to be herded on a public road. W. Taylor, county ranger, said that he saw defendant, Arthur Hickey, I sitting on the side of the road attending Jto about 30 head of cattle. When ! spoken to the defendant said he did not think he was doing wrong but would see that it did not nappen again. Mr. Hallett, for the defence, said that the cattle were being held up in two mobs pending the arrival of another party to take delivery. According to an English Act allowance was mad® for stock to be rested during droving i operations. A. Hickey gave evidence in corrooora, I .tion. He denied using the remarks • attributed to him. His reason for not 1 disclosing his purpose on the road was because of the arrogant attitude of the county engineer, who was present with the ranger. His Worship said, that he was not satisfied with the evidence for the de- • fence. He did not suggest invention, but thought the alleged object should have been explained to the ranger. He could concede that arrangements had been made to give delivery, but not necessarily on the day in question. , The evidence appeared coloured to suit the defence. He would convict and fine each £3. costs £2 9s. , BUILDING CONTRACT. Manini Nau Paraon© sued W. H. Gerbes for breach of contract. Mr. Harker said that defendant contracted to erect a building for £54. Operations were commenced by a payment made of £l7 Ils 6d. A further payment wa s made of £l7. representing work done and work anticipated. Immediately the last payment was made the work ceased. Th© value of the work done was estimated at £lB. The sum of £25 damages was claimed, representing the difference between contract price and cost to complete the work. Judgment was gj ven. for plaintiff for the amount claimed with costs £4 Ils 6d. MAINTENANCE. < Lydia Grant (Mr. Strang) s ued J- G. Grant (Mr. Wedde) for arrears of maintenance. Proof of means was not established and no order was made. CIVIL. Judgment for plaintiff was given in the following undefended civil cases:— L. W. Simpson v. F. Ayre £l4 2s. costs £2 17s; D. H. Edwards v. T. Ireland jn r . £3 18s, costs £1 15s; L. W. Strang v. A. V. Collins jnr. £7 6s Bd, costs i £1 13s 6d; W. Malenoir v. W. Tohe £l5 18s, costs £3 9s.’ Judgment summons : G. Roberts was ordered to pay A. B. Ireland £6 1» 3d within ft month, in default 14 days.