POLICE COURT

Manawatu Times, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 12757, 1 April 1914, Page 6

POLICE COURT

At the day be 7 Magistrate's Court yester- ' dsrm J * v?e Mr J. W. Poynton, S.M., e»t was entered for plaintiffs in following undefended cases: — y jiie Whitehead (Mr Meatyard) v. *a4?e -Dergle, £2 7s 2d, costs 10s; W. J- ''Smith and Son (Mr Innes) v. S. W. jlTatham, £4 19s 3d, costs lis; C. M.

-"Ross and Co. (Mr Innes) v. Isaac Last, £2 5s 9d, costs 10s; A. A. Martin (Mr Rutherfurd) v. J. Wiggins,. £5 ss; Keeling and Mundy (Mr Rurthertfurd) v. M. Just, £3 17s 6d, costs 10s; Clark and Thompson (Mr Wither) v. E. C. Havill, 4s 6d, costs 6s; Manawatu Mills Co. (Mr Jacobs) v. R. R.

Gray, £1 7s, costs 12s; B. R. Faircloth (Mr Moore) v. R. Scott, £2 ss, costs 10s; A. de Luen and Co. (Mr Fletcher) v. H. W. Hemera, £7 10s, costs £1 8s; Hospital Board (Mr Meatyard) v. J. E. Davis, £6 13s, costs £1 3s 6d. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. J. W. O'Biien (Mr Meatyard) v. Nicholson B. Ford, £7 10s 6d. No order made.

DEFENDED. R. McDowell (Mr Moore) v. D. M. Hardie (Mr Fitzherbert), claim £6 2s, balance due for breaking in, feeding and shoeing a horse. A counter claim for £lO was filed for alleged damages sustained by plaintiff illtreating the horse.

Defendant stated that he arranged with plaintiff to break in the horse for £2 and that he was to take a fortnight. Plaintiff instead had the horse in his possession nine weeks. When

the animal was eventually returned it was badly knocked about. Mrs Hardie corroborated her husband's statement that the cost of breaking in was to be £2. Donald Rait said that the marks on the animal would disappear in time. The Magistrate said he did not think there was any depreciation through the marks, and the counter claim would accordingly be disallowed. Judgment was given for plaintiff for 6s cost of a set of shoes and 13s costs. Michael Hennighan (Mr Jacobs) v. International Harvester Co. ,(Mr Cooper), claim £3B paid to defendant for a seed drill.

Plaintiff alleged that the machine was sold to him on condition that it would sow grass, rape or turnip seed at the same time, and he would not have purchased had he known it would not sow as represented. He was told before the sale that the drill would be taken baefc if not satisfactory, but this defendants now refused to do.

Edward Hennighan said the machine was represented to sow rape, turnips and grass seed at the same time through separate boxes. Mr Cooper submitted that there was no case to answer and put in signed certificates that plaintiff was satisfied with the machine. E. Burke said last June he was employed by the company and sold the drill to plaintiff. He did not represent the machine to sow the seeds mentioned at the same time.

Samuel A. Milligan, representative j of the local branch of the defendant company, corroborated the evidence of the previous" witness in respect of no representation being made to plaintiff about the machine sowing the two seeds at the one time. Witness did ; tell plaintiff that he could sow the ' two seeds if he mixed them first. ! To Mr Jacobs: Witness never told "plaintiff that he would take the ma- >' chine back if it did not do, !

Arnold S. Barr, of the defendant company, said that he was a machinery expert, and received from plaintiff a signed statement that he was satisfied with the drill.

His Worship said misrepresentation had been set up and the onus was on plaintiff to prove it. He considered that this had not been proved, and gave judgment for defendant with costs amounting to £7 16s.