MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 1 September 1927, Page 1

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

THURSDAY, SEPT. Ist. (Before W. Meldrum, Esq., S.M.) BOROUGH BYE-LAWS. Borough Inspector, W. E. Gaylor; (Mr Park) v. G. Haroourt, a chargeof allowing a motor oar to stand after dark without a light. Fined 5s and costs 20s 6d. Same v. I. Ambergcr, a similar charge. Fined os -and costs 22s Gd. DEBT CASES. N. Harris (Mr Elcock) v. M. Sutherland, claim £5 10s 6d. Judgment for plaintiff with costs £2 0s 6d. W. Jeffries (Mr Elcock) v. D. W. Bell, claim £2 16s Od. Judgment for plaintiff with costs 231 s fid. Same v. H. Dunn, claim £47 3s 4d. Judgment for plaintiff with costs £4 Is fid. In two other eases judgment was given for costs outstanding, tho amounts claimed- having been paid. Vacuum Oil Proprietary Ltd. (Mr Elcock) v. H. Barlthrop, judgment summons. Order made for payment of £ll 4s 9d and costs £1 Is forthwith, in default 21 days. Anderson’s Ltd. (Mr Elcock) v. Thus Robinson, judgment summons £2 11s. and costs fis. Order made for payment forthwith, in default 7 days.

Moody’s Battery Coy. (Mr Park) v. A. MeM.ullrvn, judgment summons £6 11s. Order made for payment forthwith with costs 15s fid, in default 1-1 (lavs. ALLEGED THEFT. The police charged George Pfahlert and Frederick Havill Jr. with theft of three 13in. water sluicing pipes, valued at £3, the property of T. A. Murdoch. Mr Sellers appeared for defendants and pleaded not guilty. Constable Drummond gave evidence that lie interviewed the dofendnoG when they denied having taken pipes from the claim in question, hut that they had taken four pipes from Kennedy’s claim, an abandoned claim. The following day Havill admitted having taken tho pipes in conjunction with Pfahlert and having put them into the pipe line at Slip Hill. Tho pipes were taken from a pipeline o.n Roberts’ Haim. Pfahlert said he had permission from Miss Havill to take tho

James A. Miinloc-li gave evidence that he was the owner of the claim known ns Roberts’ at Knniori Forks. On the property there were 13in. pipes. They were a complete line of pipes. The property was bought by witness from the Public Trustee. Went out recently and found the pipe, line had been broken and three pipes were taken, while a liut on the claim had the. windows removed and the inside open to tlio weather. Havill must have known that witness was the owner, because ho worked the claim for a while, but left it without paying the rent. Pfalilert also know witness was the owner. The pip© lino affected was used to work the claim, and now, as it was broken, it could not be used. Airs Mills had no authority from witness to permit the removal of the pipes. Valued the pipes at about £1 each.

To Mr Sellers—Some time prior to tbo pipes being taken, Air and Mrs Alills were using tlie pipes while working the claim. Mi- Sellers said the defence was that Airs gave permission to use the pipes. George Pfalilert gave evidence that when sluicing at Slip Hill, they were short of some pipes. He mot Airs AOlls who said they could have two or three pipes from Roberts’ claim and use them. They took them ami used them. He had been, waiting for the return of hs partner to return the pipes. He took the pipes, Airs Alills being present at the time. He did not know that Air Murdoch owned the property. Frederick Havill jun. gave evidence that he was working with Pfahlert who asjeed his sister for the pipes and she said they could take them, and they then took the pipes away. His Worship said there was no do.uht the nines had been stolen by defepdants’ They must have known AJrs Alills was not the owner. Each were convicted and fined £3 each, the fjiree pipes to be returned. Costs were also ordered to be paid by Pfahlert 39s and Havill 325.