FEILDING COURT

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIX, Issue 253, 24 September 1929, Page 8

FEILDING COURT

TO-DAY'S SITTING. (Special to ‘'Standard.”) FEILDING, :Sept. 24. Mr R. M. AVatson, S.M., presided over the fortnightly sitting of the Feilding Magistrate’s Court to-day. . For riding a motor-cycle - on which two other persons besides himself were seated and on which there was no sidecar attached, A. B. Scott was fined 30s and costs. Biding a bicycle on the footpath in Kimbolton Road cost E. Svendsen 10s and costs. MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. G. Mann, who did not appear, was charged on two counts of (1) driving a motor vehicle with other than the assigned number plate on it and (2) of not having the assigned number on a motor-lorry. Both charges were laid under the Motor Vehicles Act. Constable Johnston stated that he had seen defendant driving his lorry with only one number plate attached and on investigating he had found that defendant had a car also, this vehicle jeing registered, and he was transferring one plate from the car to the lorry when he used it. AVhen asked by witness if he were attempting to evade registration defendant had replied: “It just about amounts to that.’' “The idea is very ingenious,” commented the Magistrate, “and it is only right that defendant should pay a substantial penalty for attempting to evade the registration fees. He will be fined £4 with 10s costs on the first charge and on the other will be convicted and fined £l.” BREACH OF LEASE ALLEGED. Proceedings were commenced in a civil action in which Archibald Harfield McNae, of Halcombe, labourer, proceeded against AVilliam Edmund Lawrence Banks, farmer, of Sanson, to recover tho sum of £3OO, being damages and loss of rent alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff in respect of an alleged breach of a lease of a property of 245 acres at Alt. Stewart, leased to defendant by plaintiff. Mr Ongley appeared for . plaintiff and Mr Elliott for defendant. Archibald H. McNae, of Halcombe, said he owned a farm at Mt. Stewart which was leased to defendant in 1923 for five years. At tbit time the property was under mortem qe and was eventually sold by the second mortgagee to secure his portion of the mortgage. W'itness -still owed money on the second mortgage. Before witness leased the property the fences were in good order, but when defendant left they were in a bad state, nothing having been done except that defendant had strained some wires he had cut in a fence to let the sheep have full charge of the property. The gates were also in bad order, but defendant had put one or two new gates in. Contrary also to the terms of the lease, about 45 acres were left unsown in grass after defendant had broken the land up and cropped it. It would cost about £4 per acre to sow it in English grass. The dams on the place were also neglected, one had scoured out and run dry. while another had never been cleaned out. It would cost about £2O to repair this work. Gorse had increased in growth on the place since witness left it no grubbing having been done. Witness estimated that it would cost a good deal to get rid of the gorse, but he could not say what sum. The pastures also had been allegedly neglected by defendant. ‘ To Air Elliott, witness said that Air Reid was grazing the property before defendant went into possession. He denied that the farm was badly infested with gorse when defendant took possession. For two years after defendant took over the property witness retained the homestead and eight acres of land. During this time witness did work for defendant in grubbing gorse, etc. AA'itness denied that all the pastures were in bad grass when defendant took the place over, although about 80 acres had not been ploughed for some years and had gene back to native grass. He admitted that defendant might have put down 60 acres in grass, but in reply to a question from the Bench witness corrected this statement to about 45 acres. AVitness admitted that he and another man repaired one of tlie dams under defendant’s instructions, but this work had not lasted. AVhen defendant went off the place lie had leased it for grazing purposes to one Alanagli. AVitness also admitted that at a conference held in Air Ongley’s office in April, 1927, when defendant had asked for a reduction in rent, he (witness) had said that defendant was doing his best to get the place in a state to carry sheep. The present case was being brought by witness himself and not by the second mortgagee to whom witness owed £2OO. He also owed the third mortgagee seme money, but he did not know how much. AVitness had carried on mixed farming on the property and lie agreed it could be hardly called a sheen farm, although if it. were sub-divided it would be improved. Dennis C. Cullinane, solicitor of Feilding, said that, while defendant had the place he collected the rents from the N.Z. Farmers’ Distributing Coy., Ltd., who were paying on behalf of defendant. About November 30, 1927, defendant advised witness that he was abandoning the place and steps were taken to dispose of tlie farm which was subsequently leased to Air Managh for grazing purposes. To Mr Elliott, witness said that at a conference in May, 1927, the manager of the New Zealand Farmers’ Distributing Coy., Ltd., said that, if the rent of the place was reduced to 20s per acre, defendant would carry on, but it had been stated that this reduction was not possible and no arrangements had been definitely made. AA'itness thought there must have been a

misunderstanding in regard to the issue of the distress warrant on the stock. He had acted foi McNae and had written several letters to defendant pointing out that plaintiff was holding him liable lor the damage suffered by the property. The only action taken, however, was to sue defendant tor jates amounting to £23 8s 7d. Damages had also been claimed for the breach of that particular covenant. AVitness know also of tho other alleged breaches and could have brought them on, but the position or defendant at the time was that ho was not worth “powder and shot” and it had been thought best to go simply for the rates. ~ . To Mr Ongley, witness said that, in response to the letters written to him, defendant had appearod to take up an attitude that he had lost money on the place and it was up to somebody else to lose some too. Leslie AVilliam Cole, farm manager, said that he went on to the property lately occupied by defendant on January 2, 1929, and found the sub-divi-sional fences in bad condition. AVitness then went on to detail the amount of fencing material estimated by him to be necessary to restore the fencing on the property. Part of the work had been done since witness took over the place, but it was a big job. In regard to the gorse, witness said there were approximately 10 acres of it on tho place when ho took it over and it would cost about £35 to have it cleared properly. Fifty acres of the property had not been grassed after a crop and this would cost about £2OO to sow it down. This ivork had been done and the cost included all work and material including top-dressing. AVithout top-dressing the job would have cost £3 12s 6d per acre. _ . (Left Sitting).