MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Manawatu Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 3394, 9 July 1926, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

FORTNIGHTLY SITTING. The fortnightly sitting of the Feiiding Magistrate’s Court was hc;ld yesterday, Mr. K. M. Watson, S.M., presiding. Unproved Claims. The claim of N. 1. W. Brown and Co., Ltd., against Norman Giles, farmer, of Ohakune, and formerly of Makowhai, for 27s (id, being car fare from Palmerston North to Makowhai, was dismissed. i The plaintiff gave evidence that all 'the company's books had been burned in the fire which destroyed their premises last year, but he had a distinct recollection of having driven Giles to Makowhai in November, 1924. Accounts had been rendered repeatedly. Mr. J. Graham, on behalf of flic defendant, denied liability, and pointed out that the claim was not supported by any written evidence. Further, defendant denied having being in Palmerston iu the month stated. The Magistrate dismissed the case and allowed 17s costs against plaintiff. The same plaintiff proceeded against C. M. Rowe, farmer, of Rongotca, claiming £l2 IGs, being charges for driving defendant’s son to school in plaintiff’s bus, and also for the cartage of certain goods. Defendant, who was represented by Mr. L. A. Elliott, denied liability, as he had no means by which ho could cheek plaintiff’s account. Before the case proceeded, counsel for defendant submitted that the plaint was unsatisfactory, in that it did not give .full particulars of the charges alleged to have been incurred by his client. The plaint did not comply with the provisions of the Statute in such cases, and therefore the case could not stand. Mr. J. C. Hill, who represented the defendant company, submitted that the details in the account were sufficient to answer defendant’s argument, and were really an elaboration ot the plaint note. The Magistrate said that it was the Court's duty to ascertain whether the plaint was suffiieout in compliance with (lie section of the Statute. He would, in Ihe meantime, reserve the poi»t. Plaintiff gave evidence as to the transport work carried out on behalf of defendant. The books of the firm had been destroyed by a fire, and he was relying on his memory and that of tile office staff. Defendant had paid certain sums on account and these had been credited to his account. Considerable cross-examination followed, and plaintiff was unable to satisfy the Court as to defendant's alleged liability. The information was therefore dismissed. Grazing Sheep on Roads. -v. line or ills, ana costs 22s Ud, was imposed on H. ,). Haekctt, who was charged witli grazing uuo sheep in Poole street. Tno charge was brought by the Borough ranger, who gave evidence that the sheep were grazing in me locality for about uu hour. Mr. v. C. Cullhianc, who rupresentuu defend - aiu, submitted that the sheep were in charge of a drover, who was awaiting instructions as to moving the sheep into an adjacent paddock. Giving to the fact that the owner ot the sheep was not available, some delay was experienced iu accommodating tile animals.

All'. T. Fagan, Borough solicitor, contended that it was a case of grazing. Considerable difficulty was experienced in securing convictions for this offence, which was fairly common just now. The Clench held that a breach of the by-law had been committed. and defendant was dealt with as above. A similar charge was preferred against T. Thomson, slock dealer, c once ring about fall sheep which were allegedly grazing on Aorangi street, opposite to the railway line early one morning. Defendant, who was represented by -Ur. D. C. Cullinanc, denied the charge and said that the sheep were grazing on the railway reserve prior to being driven to the saleyards. They were not on the road, as lie was personally watching them. Corroborative evidence on this point was called by defendant. The Bench said that there was some doubt as to whether the sheep were on Aorangi street, and the defendant, was entitled to the benefit. The charge would be dismissed. Wandering Stock. Charges of permitting stock to be at large on highways, were dealt with as follows:—-C. Id. Sansom, lined 26s ami costs, tills N.l: H. F. Marshall, lined 15s and eosls His Sd; William Candy, C Lew ell. A. W. Gaw. and U. Burnham, caeli lined J as and eosls. A case against 11. Hill, of Talkoroa, was dismissed, as the Court was satislied that he was not the owner of the stock concerned. .Military Defaulter. A fine of 10s was imposed on each of two charges of failing to attend military parades, preferred against R,

D. McAllcy. Of the nine parades held this year, Sergeant-Major Ryan stated that defendant had only attended one. Defendant had made no effort to attend parades. Maintenance Case. In tiio maintenance case of .Frank Simms, an order was made that defendant pay 5s a week off the arrears, which amounted to £lO, and also that he keep up the payments under the current order in default 11 days’ imprisonment. Judgment by Default. Judgment for plaintiff by default was given in the following undefended cases:—X.Z. Farmers’ Distributing Coy., Ftd., v. Geo. Laverick, £6 10s Id, costs £1 15s Gd; F. F. Short v. J. \V. Wishnowski, £Ol Ss Id, costs £6 Os lid; Oroua Rabbit Board v. F. O. Johansen, £1 Os 3d, costs 19s; Harford & Sons v. V.V. A. Phillips, £3 Is, costs £1 14s (id; W. J. Beard v. A. K. Tracey, £lO6 7s Bd, costs £6 14s; Joseph Uarragh v. B. Humphreys. £1 IDs Til, costs 19s «d; Cmutoi Rabbit Board v, Sixtus and Sons, £ll 3s Sd. costs £3 10s; F. L. A. Goba v. J. E. Cockroft, £2 10s, costs £1 3s 6d; Oroua County Council v. F. K. Sandilands, 113 9s, costs £3 Is; Barraud and Abraham, Ltd., v. D. Faing, £S 16s Sd, costs £1 19s 6d. Judgment Summons. I). Byrne was ordered to pay H. B, U. Ward the sum of £6 Is 3d, and costs 15s 6d in instalments of £1 per month, in default 7 days’ imprisonment. A similar order was made in (lie ease of William Graham, in favour of Leslie Jenkins, with respect to a. sum to £6 7s, and costs 15s 6d.