MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 12 July 1923, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

j ■ •— —. I WEEKLY SITTING. 5 j 'I The weekly sitting of the Hawera ! Magistrate's Court was held to-day, Mr. J. S. Barton, S.M., presiding, BREACH OF PROHIBITION ORDER. ' A native named Taneroa Wliapo-* hajiga was charged \with a breach of his prohibition order iri that he had been found on the premises of the Commercial Hotel. A fine of £5 and 7s Court costs was imposed. JUVENILES CHARGED. ! Seven juveniles were charged by the ;. police with committing wilful damage to; the extent of £3 to property contained in a shack and owned by Edgar John Harrison. j Mr. L. A. Taylor, who appeared for _. two of the boys, said that the boys ; were in the habit of visiting the Harri- ! son boys during week-ends, and on | these occasions they would all live in | the shack' in question in real cowboy i fashion. On the occasion in question ' the boys went down to the Harrison's j with the intention of springing a sur- | I prise raid. To their surprise they ! ! found no one at home and subsequently .broke in and "meddled" with certain j i goods inside. Mr. Taylor contended I that the damage did not amount to £3. j In giving judgment, His Worship 1 said that the Court could not look upon the offence as one which pointed to the j fact that the boys were heading for a | criminal career. Three of the boys i would be fined; 10s- each and admitted ■to probation for one. year, while the ■ others would be each fined 10s. BY DEFAULT. Judgment for the plaintiff with costs / against the defendant was given in . each of the following undefended civil cases: Hawera County Council v. i Tapuirangi Katene, £130 los 2d; Syme ' and Co., Ltd. v. T. Dayman, £144 Is 6d; Morrissey Brothers v. Sam Honora, £3 16s. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. Orders were made in the following 1 judgment summons cases : Kaupokonui Dairy Co. v. Nga, Whare,. £7 lls 2d, in ' default 9 days' imprisonment; same v. Itu Whare, £5 3s lOd, in default six days' imprisonment; A. H. Shaw v. W. j Marriner, £16 2s, m default 18 days' : imprisonment, warrant to be suspendled provided debtor pays £3 and 10s a .'week. CLAIM FOR GOODS SUPPLIED. F. W. Gillanders claimed from N. . Barnett and D. Campbell the sum of ( i £45 in payment for goods supplied and delivered. Mr. Beechey appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. ODea for the defendaiib Campbell. Barnett was not represent- ! cd.i I 1 Francis Gillanders, merchant, of Ha- ■ ! wera, stated in evidence that he refused |to deliver certain goods to Barnett, but \ | later on. Barnett and Campbell came; into his store in August, 1921, and i eventually goods to the value of £70 ' j were supplied, Campbell undertaking to ■ see that the account was settled. On t October 20, £25 was paid and the bal- ; ance (£45) was still owing. j Cross-examined by Mr. ODea, wit- ' ness admitted that accounts went out Ito Barnett while Bamett was in Camp- : bell's employ. Arthur Stanley Worrall, storeman for Gillanders, said that on the first occaI sion *Barnett came into the store and ; j asked for certain goods for Campbell, of ; , Pihama. Gillanders told Barnett to j | bring Campbell along, which, he did j • Campbell subsequently stating that he • would guarantee the account. The' first entry in. the day-book showed ■ Campbell's name. i [ David Campbell, of Pihama., stated in I (evidence that in August, 1921, Baj-iiett j was training about half a dozen horses i at Oeo, only one of which belonged to j witness, and it was not until November that Barnett came to • live with him. None of the goods had been delivered to € witness and witness had nothing: to do * with the ordering of the oats, etc. He c only happened to be in Barnett's com- -I pany when the order was being given. * ! His Worship said it was clear that « i there was no evidence which could * 1 fasten on to Campbell liability for a continuing account. However,, he was satisfied to accept the evidence of Gillanders and his employee as to Campbell's liability for the first lot of goods i supplied, which had been valued at £35 8s 6d, and £25 of which had been paid. I Judgment would be against Campbell for £10 8s 6d and against Barnett for : £34 lls 6d.