Magistrate’s Court, Opunake.

Opunake Times, Volume XXV, Issue 959, 22 March 1907, Page 2

Magistrate’s Court, Opunake.

Before W. G. Biddell, Esq., S.M. WAGES CLAIM. Jenny Hennessy v. Jas. Miller (Mr McDavitt). This was a claim for £7 7s, balance of wages. Plaintiff stated that she had been doing the housework at the hotel, and as they could not get a cook she had taken the position at £1 a week, and Mrs Miller had promised that she would give her another ss, as they were offering 25s for a cook. Mr McDavitt said that the wage was 15s per week, and that £3 16s lOd hadlbeen paid into Court. Agnes Miller, daughter of defendant, stated that she and her sisters were present when her father paid Miss Hennessy, and he said that as times were bad be could only afford 15s per week, which Miss Hennesy agreed to accept, saying she would not leave the hotel while he was there.

Madge Miller and Annie Miller gave corroborative evidence. The plaintiff denied any such conversation about 15s a week. The only talk she had about it was when Mrs Miller said she would get £1 a week, and the other 5s would also be made up. The plaintiff doubted if Madge Miller was at the hotel on the date when' the alleged conversation took place, as she thought she was at Mrs Dixon’s.

The Magistrate said there was a dispute about the statement of claim. The Court must be guided by the evidence before it. Three witnesses had said that plaintiff was offered and accepted 15s per week, which is against her evidence, and judgment would be given for the amount paid into Court. Plaintiff would have to pay solicitor’s fee, £1 Is. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. Louis Fischer v. Mark Stannish, claim £2 4s 6d. Defendant stated he was milking on shares, and received about £5 per month ; he was a married man with one child ; was milking tho 50 cows at Warea, and got 45 per cent; paid 10s a week wages; for five months the cheque was £4O a month. The Magistrate said that left him £lB a month, and ordered him to pay by March 28, or have three days. ASSAULT. John Jackush v. Leonard and Augustus Jackush. Plaintiff stated that he worked with bis brothers, and objected to his brother Leonard going to the Warea sports as there was so much work to do. This happened on Tuesday. Len. got nasty, and thumped him. When he was caught by the throat he hit at Len, and when he threw him on the floor he bit him on the arm. Augustus asked him if he would give in, and he said no, and then he (Augustus) struck him. There were only three present. Leonard Jackush stated that Jack called him names when refusing him permission to go to the sports, and then witness shook him. Jack then struck him, and witness put him down; Jack bit him and he then struck Jack,

Augustus Jackush said Jack objected to Len. going because he had been loafing. The Magistrate said the plaintiff is 31j and his two brothers are older. It was rather a disgraceful cccurrence, not only fighting, but bringing the case into Court. There may be faults on both sides, and he suggested that they should make it up. The information must be dismissed. * DOG TAX. Alfred Sbaw (Registrar of Dogs) v. Jas. Vickery, charged with having an unregistered dog on February 16. Mr McDavitt, who appeared for defendant, said that the memo, which the registrar handed in to prove that he was appointed by the Council was only secondary evidence, and not sufficient, neither was an advertisement. It required the minute of the Council. The Registrar was granted leave to get the necessary evidence. Geo. W. Rogers, county clerk, read the minute from the book accepting A, Shaw’s tender.

Mr McDavitt said that was merely an acceptance of tender, and not a minute that he was appointed registrar. He asked the clerk of the Council to read the minute appointing the office.

This was done, and Mr McDavitt contended that it was right, but that of the registrar was not.

His Worship said he was satisfied that the registrar was properly appointed. A. Shaw said that the dog followed defendant about, and was registered by him last year. His brother registered the dog on March 12 with the Town Board so as to make out that the dog did not belong to defendant. E. Woods, Town Board Registrar, said that G. Vickery told him the dog was his ; it has followed both of them; thought Jim was the owner ; it was always at George’s house. Jas. Vickery said the dog was his, but he gave it to his brother before Christmas; it sometimes follows him, G. Vickery said he owned the dog ; kept it in the town; registered two dogs. The Magistrate said the evidence was contradictory. A collector must have difficulty in fixing ownership. In this case, although the dog belonged to defendant last year, they swear it belongs to the brother now, and that he registered it. Under the circumstances the Court can do nothing but dismiss the informormation, and not allow any costs. Same v. J. Farquhar. The defendant stated that it had been customary for the registrar to call, but this year he did not. The plaintiff said he had received the money since summonsing. Last year the Magistrate told him there was no occasion for him to go round. The Magistrate said there was apparently a misapprehension. Technically defendant is guilty, but he

would be convicted and pay costs. Same v. John Fowler. Defendant denied owning a dog. Alfred (Walter) Taylor and Sam Anderson said they owned the dogs. The Registrar said he had seen the dog following defendant’s children, and it had been registered for three years. Defendant said be destroyed three dogs last year.

Case dismissed. Same v. R. J. W. McNeill (Mr MoDavitt).

Plaintiff said he called at the house of defendant and was told the dogs were registered in Hawera county, but was not shown the receipt. He made enquiries -of the Hawera clerk, but he did not know of it. The Act says he must register in the county in which his place or business is situated. Called at defendant’s on Januiry 16, and saw the dog. R. W. J McNeill s*aid the registrar was not there in January, or someone would have seen him. When the registrar called at his house in February he never asked to see the receipt. Witness registered four dogs in Manaia, where he does his business* It is part of his business to sell cattle in Manaia. Manaia is in the Hawera county.

His Worship said the defendant admits having a dog and registering it in a district other than that in which he lives. The dog should be registered where the owner lives or has his place of business. Defendant states that he is a cattle dealer and registered four dogs, but that is not sufficient to comply with the Act. He may have acted in ignorance. Defendant was convicted and fined 2s 6d and costs. Same v. J. R. Fowler. The latter pleaded guilty, and said that Shaw told him that if he got it sometime it would do. The registrar said he called on defendant and told him to send in the money. . His Worship said there was apparently some,, misunderstanding, but defendant was guilty of the offence, and would be convicted and fined Is and costs. Same v. F. Chapman, who pleaded guilty. Shaw said the dog was registered that day. Convicted and ordered to pay costs. Same v. G. Bosson, who said he had sent the fee. Convicted and ordered to pay costs.