MAGISTRATE S COURT.

Otaki Mail, 25 August 1930, Page 3

MAGISTRATE S COURT.

LEVIN SITTING. The ..monthly sitting of the Magistrates ’Court at Levin before Mr. J. L. Stout, S.M., took "place on Thursday. Case Adjourned. In the licensing case, Police v. James Barberry, licensee 'Of the Manakau Hotel, charged with selling liquor after hours, an adjournment was asked for by Mr. N. M. Thomson, who appeared for defendant. He stated that the decFencip was that the two rounds of drinks supplied were paid for by a bona lido boarder. As there was a conflict of evidence, he asked for an adjournment to allow the defendant to endeavour to iocate one of his witnesses, who had loft the district prior to defendant being notified that, a case was pending.

Constable Bagno, in opposing an adjournment, stated that, the first offence took place on August 2nd. On August nth he had given the defendant sufficient information that a charge was possible. In view of the case being adjourned, it meant, that the police witness Walker would have to lie brought back from Taupo. He asked that, irrespective of how the case might go, the defendant pay the, expenses of bringing Walker back from Taupo, an I also pay the costs of the adjournment. On these conditions an adjournment was granted for a month. CARE OF LEASEHOLDS. Further argument was heard m the case in which Robert Bevan, farmer, of Manakau, claimed £219 15s 6d and £209 15s Oil from Francis 11. A. Nicholson, stock agent, of Levin, and Henry Rowlands, farmer, of Oban, as executors in the estate of the late William Bevan, of Manakau, the case having reference to alleged breaches of contract under two leases. At the last sitting of the Court llis Worship referred the question of the water courses, noxious weeds, fences and alleged impoverishment of land to an arbitrator. After considerable legal argument between Mi' C. F. Atmorc (for the plaintiff) and Mr AV\ S. Park (for the defendants), they decided to come to a settlement, and both actions were struck out, each party to pay their own costs, including the fees of the arbitrator. TROUBLE OVER AN OIL ENGINE. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for £7 10s and costs in a case iff which J. M. Milne, farmer, Levin, claimed from W. Whiley, jun., labourer, Ohau. the return of. a National oil engine or tlie sum of £25. .J. C. Millies ,Ford agent, Levin, was joined as a third party. Mr D. P. Todd appeared for the plaintiff. Mr N. iM. Thomson for Wliilev, and Mr W. Park for J C. Millies.

Air Todd stated that plaintiff was the owner of a National oil engine. He had received an enquiry over the telephone as'to whether lie had an engine and if he would sell it. lie had replied that he would. Ho did not know who the person was who spoke to him. Later he found the engine had been removed, and, from enquiries made, found Whiley had taken it. Mr Thomson stated that defendant had joined J. C. Atilnes as a third party. Whiley denied he had ever rung J. A!. Alilne, stating that lie hired the engine from J. C. Millies for the purpose of grinding shells. J. At. Milne, iu evidence, stated that lie received a ring over the ’phone one evening. The man at the other end stated that he believed witness had an engine, and on being informed that lie had, asked the horsepower, and on being told it. was 21 h.p., asked for a trial and,, if satisfied, what was the price. He was told £25, Witness promised him a fortnight’s trial and came to the conclusion it had been purchased. Witness had no use for the engine at the' time, hut Inter, when he required it, he made enquiries and ascertained that Whiley had taken it from | he slaughter-yards where he had kept it.

To Air Thomson: He did not know who it urns that rang him. He knew J. C Aiilnes and had since interviewed tlie latter and found the engine liad passed through his hands. To Mr Park: He did not think that J. C. Milnes had rung him up, as he know his voice. When the. engine was not returned, lie felt sure it was sold.

W. Whiley, jun., labourer, Oliau, said he had wanted an oil engine for grinding. He rang J. C. -Milues and asked him if he had an oil engine. The reply was that ho did not have one at the moment, but told witness to ring again in two or three days. Witness did this and Millies said" lie had got one out at his brother’s place, bv the Golf Links. Witness knew the place and went out and got the engine and brought it in to .1. C. Milnes' garage. He told Milnes he had the engine and it was on the lorry outside. He asked about the hire of it. He informed Milnes it was not much use his talcing it. if it was going to cost £3 or £4. He was told to take it and get it going: the question of hire to be left, to witness. It wanted several adjustments made, which were effected. He then took flip engine home to try and S'd it going, Milnes informing him that if he was not successful he would send a man to attend to it. Witness got it running fo» a few hours, when it stopped, so he rang Milnes up and told him he could not get. it going and asked would he send a man down. The man arrived and go* the engine going, bur it again broke down and he left it in the shed. Later he got an account from Milnes for about £4 for repairing the machine. He did not pa v if, as he thought the liability was Milnes’s. He received a second account and protested. Late- on Milnes rang him and said he could sell the engine. He had replied that lie could have it, as he thought Milnes was the owner or agent. It was not taken away for twelve months or thereabout and then during his absence. Witness never heard anv more from .1. C. Mi hies. The next" he -heard of the engine was when Mr Blenkhoru rang on- behalf of J: M. Milne, asking for the return of the engine or its value, £25. He never at any time knew the engine belonged to J. if. Milne. He never received the proceeds of its sale from any person. To Mr Park: He thought it was J. C. Milnes’s place he took the engine from, because he thought Mr Collis was living ou a place of his. He admitted taking the engine and seeing J. C. Milnes on his way back. The engine was on the lorry, when he went into the garage, where he remained about n-quarter of an hour. Witness corroborated his previous statement of the arrangements mafkv 'That was in 1928. He did not think he had the engine two years, and he never bought it. M itness stated that in the course of conversation with J. C. Milnes which he had later, Milnes had said that he had got the engine from Whilev, jun., and- had squared off the account for repairs out of tin- purchase money and had paid Whiley, jun., in cash. ’ In a subsequent conversation between witness and J. C. Milnes, the latter denied making any such statement. To Mr Todd: When he first rang up Milnes he‘had stated he wanted the engine ior grinding. Sidney Whiley, father of the previous witness, stated that his son toTd him ,he had received a summons for £25 and he thought there was some mistake. He told his. son he would make investigations. He won! to J. M. Milne and told-him:, his 'son had ob—tained the elgfuc from J: (,’• Milnes,: and lit , wonid ‘endeavour to'get the matter settled- ;i •" - To Mr Todd: When, he interviewed

Milnes at his garage he did not tell him who had possession. It was later that he' learned Mr Prouse had the engine. ' : . -J V J. C. Milnes, Ford agent, said he remembered W. Whiley, jun., coming to his place to have minor repairs effected to an engine which was on a lorry. That was the first time he had seen him. He remembered defendant stating that he had bought an engine from witness’s brother. He had never heard of defendant wanting to buy an engine. Shortly after, witness did further repairs. He had sent his account regularly every month. Not hearing from defendant, witness eventually got a man named Laugeson, who was in his employ, to call on him. Whiley called and said lie could not pay aud was willing to hand over the engine in settlement of the. account. Witness never knew that he (witness) was supposed to be tlie seller. When lie took the engine over he had to effect repairs. He never had anything to do with the sale to Whiley cither as agent or otherwise. He emphatically denied paying Whiley cash above his account for repairs.

To Air Thomson: When there was trouble lie said he would try to get the engine back from Prouse. Whiley had never approached him about buying an engine. He denied Whiley, sen.’s, statement that witness would pay cash above the account. At the time he sold the engine to Prouso, who was his brotlier-in-law, lie considered it was worth only £7. Witness had a brother residing in the Avenue. Witness definitely remembered Whiley saying he had bought the engine. He denied that he ever rang Whiley or offered to sell the engine to square the account.

Air Todd said it seemed quite clear that 'Whiley had had the engine and disposed of it, perhaps innocently. His client had been put to the expense of purchasing another at £3O; and counsel asked for judgment against Whiley. Air Thomson said plaintiff had unfortunately let the thing drift. He did not know who took the engine. The Alagistrate stated that on the evidence there was no contract of sale and the matter verged on to conversion by allowing J. C. Alilncs to take the engine over in payment of repairs. He would enter judgment against Whiley for £7 10s, with costs.