MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Manawatu Standard, Volume LII, Issue 226, 24 August 1932, Page 12

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

CIVIL BUSINESS. Mr J. L. Stout. S.M., presided over yesterday’s sitting of the Magistrate's Court when civil business was transacted. Judgment lor plaintiff by default was given in the undermentioned cases: —Manawatu Racing Club (Mr Grant) v. K. Gordon, £4, costs £1 17s fid; Jackson and Craven (Mr Oram) v. C. Berquist, £4 19s, costs £1 13s fid; Penberthy Bros. (Mr Laurenson) v. F. Allerby, £B, costs £1 lfis fid; Holbcn Hubbard and Coy., Ltd. (Mr Cooper) v. W. Buckley, ( £1 os, costs 13s; J. Nathan and_ Coy., Ltd. (Mr Grant) v. H. Robb, los (costs only); Gifford Moore, Ongley and Tremaine v. F. Ogier, £6 19s Id, costs £1 10s fid; Ford Motors, Manawatu, Ltd. (Mr McLeavey) v. W. Miles, senr. £4 13s 3d, costs £1 3s 6d; same v. C. Davey, £1 Is lOd, costs 10s; i same v. E. R. Pratt, £1 12s fid, costs :8s; Coo-eo Tailoring Coy., Ltd. (Mr Rodgers) v. J. Gower, fid, costs ISs.

JUDGMENT ORDERS. C. Stevens was ordered to pay Ford Motors, Manawatu, Ltd. (Mr Grant) the sum of £ls Is 3d, forthwith, in default 14 days’ imprisonment, the warrant to bo suspended so long as defendant pa vs £1 per month. A. J.‘ Roddick was ordered to pay Standard Brewery Coy. (Mr Cooper) £9 19s, forthwith, in default 10 cays’ imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended so long as defendant pays ~1 per month. DEFENDED CASE.

In a defended action between Ford Motors (Manawatu), Ltd. (Mr MeLeavey) and 11. Hamer, of Foxton (Mr Oram), plaintiffs claimed £9 17s fid, being tlie amount outstanding on a car sold to defendant on April 7, 1930. Defendant counter-claimed that on February 6, 1932, he had paid to tho plaintiff company a cheque for £5 as a final payment and in satisfaction of the balance then owing in respect of the purchase price; further, that on or about March 31, 1932, the plaintiff company, by its authorised agents, wrongfully seized the car. He therefore claimed the return of tho said car or, in the alternative, tho sum of £49 17s fid as damages, together with the costs of the action. Evidence was given that tho cheque received from defendant had been twice presented and finally returned with the instructions “refer to drawer.” The car had then been seized.

Defendant, in evidence, stated that lie was of the opinion that he had sufficient money in the hank at tho time to meet the cheque. At the conclusion of the hearing tho Magistrate stated that he would look up tho authorities quoted by defending counsel. While the authorities quoted appeared to favour defendant, His Worship did not think that even though the car had been wrongfully seized, he could accept defendant’s estimate of the value of the car. “Defendant appears to be attempting to make money out of his own wrong,” added the Magistrate. Decision was accordingly reserved.

WINDOW BREAKING,

IMPRISONMENT IMPOSED,

George McMahon, a labourer, aged 44 yeais, was charged with wilfully damaging a pane of glass valued at £2 2s fid, tlie property of 11. B. Tucker.

Senior-Sergeant Whiteliouse explained that accused had walked into the polioe station last night and announced that he had broken the window. He had stated that ho had dono so in order that he could be locked up, knowing that he would receive food and shelter. Accused had been in the Dominion for 24 or 2.5 years. Ho had injured his back and foot two years ago, and bad had no work for the past 12 months. His funds had run out.

The Magistrate: Wo cannot allow people to go round breaking windows. If bo wants board and lodging lie can have a month free.

CLAIM FOR WOOD. In a civil action, P. Kelliher, labourer, of Palmerston North, proceeded against Miss I. M. Smith, of Boundary Road, claiming possession of a quantity of wood which ho had cut from a plantation, or £4 10s in lieu of the wood. Mr Oram appeared for plaintiff and Mr Ongley for defendant. Plaintiff gave evidence of having trimmed macrocarpa trees under instructions from defendant. After spending 18i days on the work, he had removed four loads of the wood, but had then been stopped by defendant. There were approximately 14 or 15 loads of wood remaining. He had not received any payment in cash, it having been agreed that he was to receive the wood.

In reply to counsel, plaintiff stated that he had cut the branches back to the trunks under instructions. He denied that he had ruined tho plantation. He had been instructed by defendant to cut down any trees which were interfering with the shrubs.

John Kelliher, father of plaintiff, stated that he had been twice at defendant’s place while his son had been engaged in carting tho wood. Defendant passed on two occasions without making any objection to what his son was doing. Defendant stated that plaintiff had called on her in search of work. With a view to assisting plaintiff she had agreed to allow him to trim tho trees, plaintiff to have the trimmings in lieu of payment in cash. Plaintiff had also been given some digging, but payment had been made for this. Witness had shown plaintiff what line of cutting to follow, but he had cut out certain gum and pine trees without authority. Witness had, however, offered plaintiff 12s del per cord to cut the trees up, but plaintiff had wanted 30s per cord. Witness was still willing to let plaintiff have the trimmings, but she declined to allow him the larger timber which he had cut without authority. E. W. Childs, wood and coal merchant, stated that there was approximately four cords of wood on defendant’s "property, which he had valued at los per cord. However, to pay for its trimming would not make it wortli while to buy the wood. In reply to counsel for plaintiff, witness stated that to a man who was prepared to put in his own time, the wood would ho worth about £1 per cord by the time it reached his own backyard.

E. J. Sheppard, of Boundary Road, stated that from an ornamental point of view the trees, in his opinion, had been ruined, although they might not necessarily die

D. Galloway, of Palmerston North, stated that the trees had been chopped into the trunk whereas they should have been trimmed four feet out. In his opinion there had been no necessity to cut out the gum and pin© trees. The Magistrate commented that, plaintiff had quite evidently done more cutting than necessary. Defendant had seen the first tree trimmed, but after being corrected plaintiff had continued to nut more big # timber than instructed. It had been estimated that there were only four cords of wood on the property and of these two cords were small wood, which plaintiff was entitled to. The case would he adjourned sine die to permit of plaintiff obtaining all tho cut wood ol't out from the bough.