S.M. Court.

Opunake Times, Volume I, Issue 28, 5 October 1894, Page 2

S.M. Court.

Thursday, 4th October.

(Bffore Major Take, S.M., G. W. Gano, Esq., and Runciman, Esq., J.P.'s.)

Before commencing proc edings, Mr Barton, as senior member of the bar, congratulated Mr Gane on his taking his seat for the first tiim on the Bench. Mr Gane thanked the bar for the compliment. ILLEGAL IMPOUNDING. Pihikite v. Kahakura ; a charge of illegally impounding J 7 head of cattle. Mr Benue!t appeared for the plaintiff. * Defendant pleaded not guilty. Pihikite deposed that he had 47 head of cattle dej asturing on the Opua native lands, in v Inch his father had an interest, and defendant had not. Mr Bennett raised the point of the pound not being a legal one. Witness said there was no board printed, so that it could be read, erected at the pound. He paid 47s driving fees, under protest. Judgment was given that the driving fees be returned, the costs of the case to be paid by defendant.

A “ PROHIBITED ” CASE.

A. McGill, being a prohibited percon, was charged that he had procured spirituous liquor from a licensed person, in contravention of section 18 of the Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control Act.

Constable Twoomey deposed that qn the 18th April a prohibition order was taken, out against accused. On the 21st September witness was at Pihama, when ho saw the accused, who had a bottle of brandy in his pocket, which he took from him and now produced in court. Cross-examined by Mr Caplen : Did not threaten accused with three weeks’ imprisonment if he did not give up possession of the brandy. Acted on authority of common sense in taking the bottle from him.

Arthur McGill, junr., deposed that accused was not always sober since the prohibition order was taken out, sometimes indulging a couple of times a week. Saw. the bottle taken from him by Constable Twoomey. John Fowler deposed that he saw accused at the Oeo Hotel on the-21st September. Only spoke to him in the passage of the hotel, and then left. Cross-examined by Mr Caplen; Have worked for him. Believe it necessary that be should have liquor, under certain circumstances. Had heard of a doctor’s certificate ordering liquor, but had never seen it. Mr Caplen submitted that the case must bo dismissed—firstly, because no prohibition order was produced; and secondly, there was no evidence given to show that the accused had obtained liquor in the district. Owing to previous illness, he was hound to have a certain amount of spirituous liquor. Fined 40s and costs. WITHDRAWN. Morrison v. Coffey. Mr Morrison withdrew the case. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. E. C. Middleton v. McNeill; claim £4 9s for damage done by bush fire. Mr Caplen for plaintiff, and Mr Scott-Smith for defendant. Defendant deposed that he was not the owner of section 53, on which the fire originated. The section belonged to his wife. Did nit set fire to the bush on the date charged.

Cross-examined by Mr Caplen : Was not there on that date. Sent boys to light a fire about that date. They told him that they bad-lit a fire. Was asked !o have a look at the damage, and did not make any objection then to its not being his own section. By Mr Scott-Smith : Think it was on the 18th February that he had gftut the boys to light the lire.

Mr Gar run deposed to knowing the land. Was there about the time of the fire, but did not remember the date. The fire was burning through from Section 53 to Mr Middleton’s, and that was the only fire he saw. Cross-exaraiaed; The fire might have originated in Sells’ place. Could not swear that the fire originated on Section 53. Bid not remember the date at all. His opinion was that the fire originated on Section 53, and then travelled through to Middleton’s. By the Bench ; Considered that the fire was burning for ten days or a fortnight. Mr Scott-Smith addressed the Bench for defendant.

Mr Caplen replied. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs 6s and solicitor’s fee 21s. JUDGMENT. Opunako Lighter Co v. E. P. Harrison. Glum £l.’ Judgment for amount claimed and costs. CLAIM FOR FENCING. Mather v. Macßjynolds. Claim for fencing, £5 17s 6d. Mr Barton appeared for plaintiff, and suggested that defendant should state what items he disputed. Mr Mactteynolds said he had never agreed with plaintiff to do the work; the work was not done as per specifications, and it was not completed. E. Mathers deposed he had made contract in the presence of W. Ebbett, at Pungarehu, to put up ten chains ot fencing along frontage. ' There was nothing said about size of posts. He would not have taken it if posts were to be Sin s Sin. Did not consider 6s 6d per chain a dear price. Followed bushfellers’ pegs. Agreed to put a side fence up sufficient, to stop cattle. Took side line at day wages at 7s per day. Mr Macßoynolds first complained about the work some two months after it was finished.

When he went to Oaonui defendant said it was a nice fence, as he heard that a pig had come out of the bush and rublJbd the strainer down. Afterwards defendant paid £7 on account, and said lie ivould look at the fence before settling up. He had received letter from defendant to Ebbett stating

that he had examined the fence, and was not satisfied. Cross-examined by. defendant: Did not remark why the posts you want are straining posts. The posts on the road line are rimu and rata. Never measured the line ; took his word for length of line. Never sent word that fence was finished ; tdd him it was. finished on IGth July. Did not see him calculate on paper. Believed he had made a calculation of some sort. Defendant promised to come on Sunday to inspect work. Witue-s did not go to meet him at the work. Could not say what length side fence was; it might be 85 chains; thought it was over 25 chains. At the bottom end there are some kohikohis and other kinds of timber in the posts. Said he would nof do it by contract. Said he would take it by day labor. Re-examined; Was up at fence about three weeks ago ; it was then all right. W. Ebbett deposed: Remember being present at Pungarelm when contract was made between Mathers and Macßeynolds. Defendant mentioned ten chains. Mathers undertook contract at 6s Gd per chain. At first defendant said he wanted a fence run through the bush fastened to the trees, and an odd post here and there mentioned. Never put up a fence with Bin x Sin posts. Did not know any reason why defendant should try to fasten cc to aim.

Cross-examined by defendant; liemember working at Pungarehu, and running up a bill for stores. Did not remember undertaking to work it out. He told defendent that Martin would not assist him to do the work. He might have told him that he could get Mather to assist him. He was positive that it was Mather who took the contract. When he received letter about fence he did not know why he had not answered it. He gave it to Mather, who would not let him answer it. Considered ho had nothing to do with contract. Did not bear any remark about size of posts. ' Did not know why he did not reply when defendant complained of fence. D. Herlihy deposed: He knew the fence in -question. Examined fence ; found it was an ordinary fence, and considered it was a fair fence considering the land it goes through. Took no notice of side fence. Cross-examined by defendant: Mather asked him to look at it. He did not wish to be mixed up in it at all. M. Fennell deposed : Went and saw men at work fencing. Considered it to be a fair ordinary fence. Came along side fence once and considered a good job was made of it. It might keep in quiet cattle. Cross-examined by defendant: Did not consider it was a difficult place to put up a feace. M. J. Macßeynolds deposed that in January W. Ebbett and Martin came to Pungaiehu for supplies. Gave them credit for stores required. Later they called and could not settle amount. Agreed with Ebbett then for him to work in conjunction with Martin. Later Ebbett said Martin backed out, and Ebbett brought Mather up. Mather did most of the talking. Gave them their own price to make a good job. The work was not well done, nor was it finished. They told him that they had done ten chains. Ho went two days after and examined fence, and (hen complained of the way in which it had been done. Had Ebbett replied to bis letter telling him that he had nothing to do with contract, it would have saved a lot of trouble. They first claimed days’ labor," and then billed him -for 274 days, which he resisted. Without any further explanation he received a summons.

Cross- examined; He wrote from Pungarehu. Had entered £7 as paid to Ebbett on IGth July, at Oaonui. Considered he was dealing with Ebbett in the matter, although Mather did moist of the talking. The case was adjourned till uoxi day. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. Silvester v. Jackson ; claim, £1 17s 10d ; Judgment summons. Amount ordered to be paid' in one month. The Court adjourned till Friday.