MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 8 June 1923, Page 6

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

* _ •, THURSDAY, JUNE 7. ' (Before Mr. J. S. Barton, 5.M..) WILFUL DAMAGE TO WINDOWS. Rangiuhu was charged on the information of the police that on May 25 he did wilfully break four panes of glass in the windows-of a house occupied by Hinga and his family at Onangai. Defendant pleaded guilty. It appears that Hinga had a quarrel with, defendant and nut him out of his house, when the latter took up an iron bar and broke the window. Kapoi Pikiaru, wife of Hinga, said she knew defeni dant, and remembered him coming to ! her house and striking her boy. A struggle took place, and her husband ; helping her, tne.y pushed him otit of the ! house. She saw him break the win- • dows with an iron pipe. She consider- j ed the value would be £4. Defendant \ was always making trouble when he : came to the house. He was given no j provocation. ! To Mr Taylor: Her husband was now suffering from injuries received in a fight at Manutahi. She herself was present on this occasion. She remembered other occasions in which Hinga was in fights with other natives. Hinga lived with her in a house owned by a native named Okerao. After the breaking of the windows she caught defen-. dant and hit him twice. No demand was made by Rangiahu for money. Sho did not know if money was du-e by her to defendant. To the Magistrate : After she and her husband put defendant out he went away for a short time, probably five minutes, and then he came back and broke the windows. J. Hinga, son of complainant, gave evidence as to defendant coming to the house, and corroborated the evidence as to the struggle and breaking of the windows. Afterwards his parents tried to send defendant away. Constable Clark deposed that on comElaint being made by Hinga and Kapoi, c went out to see the house, finding

the windows broken Rangiahu said he was one of the owners of the land at the pa, and Hinga, had no right to any land there. Hinga was a disturber of the peace among the natives. The house was owned by llamanui, who was now dead, and he him* self was one of four trustees in the property. He went to the house, as he often did, to see them, and saw all the family. • Hinga said he was a man who had no money. It was n taunt. Kapoi was now taking all the blame, but it was Hingi who struck him and tore his coat. This took place after they put him out of the house. They followed him out, and alter the struggle Ye broke two pains of one window. He knew nothing of the -other broken panes. He was very angry, and picked up something, not knowing what it was. To. the Sergeant: He thought it was a piece of wood, and did no know what he was doing .fa-- the moment. He did not know how the -other windows were broken. He did not come to the police, because after cooling down he did not want to make trouble. Me had formerly been on friendly terms with complainant. The latter 'and his family had 'been living in the house for about live years. He Irimself meant to replace the windows, and would have done so, bvft 'that the matter had been reported to the police. He had some drinks in the "house on May 25. .'md the others had mare than he had. Ko Ttnew he had "been warned by the police not to go and get drink. Mr Taylor pleaded that there was provocation and a nnarrel. His Worship said that from the evidence he must 'believe that the defendant had broken all the windows. He said it was no excuse that there had bep*i a quarreL X^endant was fined £1 and co^.ts. and to pay into the Court the sum of £3, the cost of the windows. CIVIL CASES. Judgment by default was given in the following civil eases:—B. R. Lonu; v. W. Brown, £4 15s and costs £1 f9s Gd; Farmers' Co-or>. v. P. G. Law £8 and costs £1 15s tid, L. M. Merrie v. A. E. Atkinson. £13 17s and costs £3 2s: James and G. Motors. Ltd., v. G. H Gilbert, costs only £1 6s; Farmers' Coop, v. Rook and Taunton, £5 2s 6d and costs £1 15s 6d; B. R. Long v. M. J. Sherry, £9 10s and costs £1 ios Gd; i Hawera Electric Co. v. A. E. Hunter £3 15s and costs £1 3s 6d. JUDGMENT SIMMONS. A- H, Arthur v. 1L J. Murphy. £3 J6s 4d. Debtor wrote offering to pay ; within a month, and an order was accordingly made that he pny £3 lCs on or before July 7, in defaulr seven days in gaol. I Robert Tait v. H. Gray. ,Au order [ was made that the amouiit tfuo. £3 7s lOd be paid within twenty o.ns days. in default four days in gaol. E. Stancombe v. E. Kiiev. £20 3s (;d. ])ebtor was ordered to pay by instalments of £2 per mouth, first to bo paid on June 12, and future instalments on twelfth day of each month until .settled.

I CHIMNEY ON FIRE. For allowing a chimney to be on 6re .L. Ritchie was fined 25s and costs. The Magistrate said it was necessary to reimburse the Fire Board tor their expenses. CLAIM FOR. POSSESSION OF CAR. I Andrews r. Myers.—This was a claim to recover an Austin car valued at £150, taken by defendant about August 29, 1922., and possession, of the ear or ! £150 if possession can wot be had, and £50 damages for detention thereof. Mr M.atthews, for plaintiff, said the whole question was now one oi ownership. Alice Andrews deposed that she was i claiming the return of an Austin cat- or ' its value and a sum for damages. She _ purchased from Mr D. Henderson, of ; Haw-era. She decided to purchase on , the expectation that she would make ' something out of the purchase. It was on her brother's advice that she bought , the car. She had some money when she came to New Zealand, part of the sale of a house in Sydney. She paid £5 deposit, and agreed" to pay £100 in some months, and the balance in instalments. There was a delay in paving the further £100, hut it 'was paid in February. 1920. The receipt was made out in Myers' name because he had done the business with Henderson, and she took the receipt from Myers! - She was to pay £2 per week, and some of these instalments were paid with , the deposit of £100. The receipts were j made out to her if she paid the instal- : ments and to Myers if he paid them She took a. house in Argyie street with a compulsory purchasing clause, paying lin the meantime 30s a week rent "Mv" c-rs wns_ earning; £4 15s per week and late,r £5 os. He was at Arthur's about IS months. The property was in her j name. Myers' money was'used to reiiop yate the house, to the extent of £85. in papering, painting, spouting and alterations to. motor shed. She was keeping up the payments for the car. A few weeks before August 29, 1927. an attempt was made to sell the car because it was not being used. Myers of- ! fered no objection. She and Myers had lived together for some years, during which time she had done dressmaking" and had kept boarders to help in keeping the house going. She did not know Myers had intended to take the car, and found on coming home one morning that he had gone with the car and all his clothes. The next she knew was

that Myera was arrested in Auckland, \ and that the car was stored. I To Mr ODea: When Myers worked ~ he brought all his money to her. Tie ' liad worked only a matter of ruontivs, t , but had earned good wages, up to £0 10s. He was not a man with expensive habits, and was a temperate man. She was certain ncr dressmaking business did not show a loss, and was satisfied with the results. She couid not say how much she made. His money was devoted to the upkeep of the house. The house might be a joint matter between them, but the car was absolutely hers. They did the work oi' renovating themselves. They had pretty good furniture, and it belonged* to them together. Myers helped her in doing work on other houses in which they had lived, but very little of his money went into such properties. Some of the receipts for the car payments were made out in the name of Mrs L. My-' ; ers. She knew that some were made ; out in his name. The alterations to ! motor shed were made with liis money. I She kept boarders for about fifteen j years. She had lent Myers about £17 j before she came to New Zealand. There were a few repairs to the car, and Myers might have paid for them. If she had sold the car she would have kept the proceeds. She did not see why :he should get half the value of the j car. She denied that she was expen- . sive in her tastes for dress, jTo Mr Matthews : She might have '. saved a pound or two from Myers* money. The, source of her first pur- , chase was a legacy from her father. jNo money came from Myers- to go into the second house purchased. She first met Henderson at Keen's sale in Ktgent Street, when sho was introduced .to him, and explained to Henderson the reason of the delay in paying the money for the car. j F. G. Coleman deposed that he was \ a boarder at Mrs Andrews' house for ■ four months, and that he had seen al- 1 terafcions and additions had been carried out. To Mr ODea: He did not know who paid for the work done. David Hencjrson gave evidence as to the selling of the car by him. Mr ; Pillette first interviewed him as to buy- '' : sell the car on terms. The amount of j £110 was remitted to him by telegram. lAt first he thought Myers was th^- pur--1 chaser. The receipts were made out in the name of the person who t>aid in- j stalments. He understood now that it I ' was Mrs Andrews' money. j To M,r ODea: He gave some receipts j ■in Mrs Myers' name. It was at a I Regent Street sale he found that the ! money sent was Mrs Andrews. | IMr ODea said this was no doubt a ' case where everything but the wife's : ' own belongings were held in common. ; The one thing she claimed as hers was tliQ car. Myers' money all went to her. and lie strongly submitted that it was a case in which the car should be held to be one asset in common. He be- ■ Sieved it was a case where the car ' should be sold and the proceeds halved. All but Myers' bare keep went to plain- ! tiff, and but for his earnings she would - not have had any money in the bank. 1 Leon Myers said he met Mrs An- 1 i drews twenty years ago in North Sydney. He was earning about !?3 3s then. ' Neither had very much money. He had a gig and horse when they lived * together first, and he always gave her : nearly all his money. Then they went to Queensland and rented a. v house and all property was m her name ' as A. Myers. It was not true that none 1 of hrs~ money accumulated. She had al- - ways a 'banking account. He was then 1 getting £3 per week, and he looked on 1 it that they owned everything jointly. 1 He had often done work and made furniture for the house. In Newtown, 5 Sydney, all moneys went into the "bank in her own name. Then he went to - Orange, where he got work at £3 15s, " and they secured a boardinghouse. Then ij he got a loan of £1.50 from her father 1 j for a brufirness of his own, which was mainly paid back to him. When they • left he went to Penritli and he.got £3 1 5s in wages. They bought a house, paying down £95, proceeds of the sale of their furniture and it was in her ; name. With his pony and sulky thrown in they made a profit of £100. At ! Balkan Hills a property was bought, c { £12;.) being paid.down, in her name. ■ H-e worked there, and afterwards lived '; in Newcastle and then Sydney. This ■ ' last property was sold two years alter ; " nt a loss of ahout £80. She would ( l have got £200 from the deal. Jj;.\vas I- about nine months afterwards, before ; coming^ to New Zealand. His best .' wages in Australia were about £4 ss. 'He hud been out of work altogether rot more than nine months. His ironey went partly into the work at i.';e ho'ue 3 in Argyle Street. In reference to the y car, he said he arranged vlie sale, and j- put his wekly wage of £4 inio tin-, den posit on the car. H-e lent !17 to Mrs •s Andrews' brother from money h< k! in common. Mrs Andrews wont up «o the ■i- council office and reflate;<k! the <.-<.r in

his name. She paid the fee lequired. He had agreed to halve tl,e proceeds of the car if sold. He anJ Mr Co'cnum 1 had done the work at the car *he<i. All his wages had gone 10 Mrs Andrews absolutely. He had got in from £50 to £60 in private work in Hawn. To Mr Matthews: M,rs Andrews kept a good home for him, and he had ji*:>er asked for an account of the expenditure. She ha.l paid "he faros aocss because he had \jiveii her all his raon«y. Mrs Andrews h .d worked well •••.nd had let rooms whi.e they ii/ed together. When he left Hawera he did not teil her he was taking the car, but jt.&t took it while she was away. His wages were earned and a ponton s]>ent • n :i-e work done at the house. Paynu it of the car was completed if. (.Viohei, IC*2O.

Mrs Andrews, recalled. s:nd f.o Mr ODea she understood she '.vas ans.nging to register as a taxi.

Mr ODea, in closing the case for defendant, said that Myers' evidence had strongly pointed to their money being held in common. .

The Magistrate said that the whole kernel of the case was the amount of £150 said by one to have been lent to him, and by the other to have been left- to tu>r.

Mr Matthews said that the l<>ng time taken to pay the car showed that it was paid mostly by .noney given to he?- by Myers.

His Worship said he had no difficulty in coming to a decision. The bond without a conventional tie held together a long time showed that plaintiff gave defendant, such confidence that he gave her all his money. He also had established a good character, working- hard and -well, and had jdveri her his wages. They, had kept money in common for

their joint use. They differ as to the source of the amount with which they were able to invest in property, and later in the oar. He was not justified in believing plaintiff's version more than the other, and the onus was on her to prove that the fund was hers. Defendant's evidence had somewhat altered his first estimate of the position. He could not, on the evidence given, make the order for possession of the car. Costs were not asked for by defendant. VALUELESS CHEQUE. On a charge of issuing a valueless cheque for £1 to Takarangi, taxi-driver, E. J. Read was fined £5 and expenses, in default of payment fourteen, days imprisonment. i On a, further charge of failing to maintain his wife lie was remanded to appear at Wellington on Friday morning. i