MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLVIII, Issue 237, 4 September 1928, Page 8

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Air J. L. Stout. S.M., presided over the regular civil sitting of the Alagistrato’s Court this morning. Julgment for plaintiff by default was given in the following cases: Haywood Vulcanising AVorks, Ltd. (Air Grant) v. T. Broadbent £6 17s 3d, costs £1 10s 6d; A. S. Clarke (Air Alerton) v. J. Levens £2 7s 6d, costs £1 5s 6d; Pohangina County Council (Air Laurenson) v. G. H. Hunt £3O Is lOd, costs £4 3s 6d; A\ r . H. Skinner (Air Ongley) v. R. Goodwin £3 17s, costs £1 3s 6d.

D. Scrogie was ordered to pay H. L. Young, Ltd. (Air Grant) tho sum of £1 13s 8d forthwith, in default three days’ imprisonment. DISPUTE OVER LOG. Herbert Buckrell, of Awapuni, farmer, proceeded against J. J. Waller, also of Awapuni, huntsman, claiming the sum of £5 as the value of a log allegedly removed from plaintiff’s property. Air Aleatyard appeared for plaintiff and Cooper for defendant. Tho statement of claim alleged that, in June, 1927, defendant trespassed on plaintiff’s, river-bed accretion and removed therefrom, without authority, a large totara log brought on to the river-bed accretion by flood waters. Defendant, on being approached, refused to give up tho log or the posts and strainers into which it had oeen cut. Plaintiff, therefore, sought to recover the value of the log, which ho placed at £5. In evidence plaintiff stated that he owned 12J acres of land on Slack’s Road, Awapuni. A year ago, men in the employ of defendant removed tho log, which was the subject of tho dispute, from his river-bed accretion. Defendant had since refused to give it up. To Air Cooper: Ho had never taken anv steps to apply for a title to the accretion, as, if he were shown as the owner, he might he compelled to do certain work to it.

This concluding plaintiff’s case, Mr Cooper submitted that tlier,o was no case to answer, plaintiff having failed to establish ownership of • tho accretion. Before he could decide the caso, said His Worship, ho had to determine the question of title, and that was outsido Iris jurisdiction, being a matter for the Supreme Court. The case was struck out, costs being given ngainst plaintiff. A TERMINATED AGREEMENT. E. R. Saunders, of Newbury, farmer, sought to recover lrom J. P. Tierney, of Taihape, farmer, 'the sum of £3O being a half-share of tho amount received by defendant for hay and mangels sold by him to J. T. Walsh. Mr Fletcher appeared for plaintiff and Mr Ongley for defendant. Plaintiff, in evidence, said that defendant had been share-milking for him for a period of 12 months. On the termination of the contract there was a quantity of hay and mangels on the property, and these were sold by defendant to Walsh, who came on to tho place in his stead. Defendant later refused to pay plaintiff a half-share.

Cross-examined, witness admitted that, under the agreement between them, defendant had the right to produce hay and mangels on tire property for feeding to the stock, and that it was essential that his successor should have feed for the stock. Witness could not see that, in seeking judgment for £3O, he was endeavouring to make a profit out of the termination of the-agreement. Defendant, said Mr Ongley, addressing the Bench, even if he had sold the hay apd mangels to an outsider, would not, under the agreement, havo had to pay a half-share of tho proceeds to tho plaintiff. Judgment was reserved. DISPUTE OVER A MIRROR. A claim for £4 10s as tho value of a mirror allegedly purchased by defendant from plaintiff in or about February, 1928, was made by P. Cunningham, formerly of Palmerston North, but ’now of Auckland, confectioner, against B. Gleeson, of Palmerston North, hairdresser. Mr Ongley appeared for plaintiff and Mr Laurenson for defendant. In evidence plaintiff stated that he had formerly occupied two shops in Coleman Place. On having to give up one because of 're-building, he sent a large mirror from the shop to be framed. Later, he saw defendant, who said that he would purchase the mirror. Defendant having just started in business on his own account, witness agreed to wait for his money. It was not correct that defendant was merely storing tho mirror. • Defendant, on oath, stated that plaintiff had asked him to store the mirror for him. Witness had no need for it, as he possessed three of his own. He had never received a bill for tho mirror, and, on roceipt of advice from plaintiff’s solicitors, had told them that the mirror could bo obtained by them at any time. Mrs Gleeson; wife of defendant, deposed that she had been present when her husband had agreed to store the mirror. His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff, with £2 14s costs.