FEILDING COURT.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXII, Issue 8796, 25 April 1907, Page 3

FEILDING COURT.

(Before Mr A. D. Thomson, S.M.) August Wiswoskey v. J. Corufoot, claim £lB 33 for extra work in connection with road formation contract. Mi- Sandilnnds appeared for plaintiff nrad .Mr Mclntyre for defendant. The particulars "of claim wero made up for lifting and strengthening bridge, putting larger culverts on road, and making extra half chain'of formation. Joseph Shapleski gave evidence m support of tho claim. ~,,,, . For tlio defence it was stated that the foriginal contract was . taken by plaintiff for £46, aiid ho had been paid £O-1. Tlio excess payment, however, was chiefly for extra metal £l3 18s and £4 2s for extra work.— Judgment M'as for defendant, with costs £3 12s. Christopher Rynam, a coloured man, was charged with breaking into the residence of A. D. Scott at Halcombe on April Ist and stealing therefrom a gold watch, and seven sovereigns. The evidence went to show that Scott and his wife loft their home on March 27th and returned on April 2nd,- when they found that a rough search had evidently been made in the house for valuables by the way things were littered about, and the watch and money Had been taken. A beer bottle and somo cigars woro left by the thiol' in one of the bedrooms, and ho had evidently lain on the bed with boots on. Accused had been about Halcombe some days previously to tho robbovy, stopping most of the time and drinking at tho hotel, and had borrowed money on two occasions from Mr Grantham, his former employer. On the night of tho robberv accused purchased two bottles of" beer, and asked for Is ■worth of spirits on credit, but was refused. He was seen later at the railway station with one bottle of beer The next day, about midday, ho was at Greatford railway station ana purchased a ticket for Hawera, tendering a sovereign or a note m pavment. Accused reserved his defence, and was committed for trial at the Supreme Court. \V. A. Collins v. G. J. Webster, claim for possession of premises, rent being 91 days ir arrears. Order given, with costs £3 3s. Ongley and Kelly v. Chas. Hedges, claim £l2 os 6d. Legal expenses chiefly paid out of pocket. Judgment for plaintiff with costs, his Worship expressing the opinion that tho costs were very light. His Worship gave judgment in the case against Sing Liun Kee, grocer and fruiterer, charged with keeping ; open after the legal hour for closing. Mr Thomson said:—Defendant is charged with keeping his shop open after 9 p.m., the hour decided on by requisition for closing. By the requisition fruiterers are excluded from its operation. Tho defendant has a shop within the requisition opening into Manchester street. He has also another building, with distinct walls and distinct front and back entrance, the front entrance being to Grey street. This latter building he opens at 9 p.m., and sells in it fruit only. Although tho walls of the two] buildings are quite distinct, there is a covered in passage from the back door of the building to tho back door of the other, and on the shelves m the passage were left vegetables, fruit etc. On the night in question it is admitted that the shop opening into Grey street was open after 9 p.m., and that one customer for fruit and groceries which had been bought in the other shop before 9 p.m., but which, for convenience sake the customer had left until lie called tasain, had tho goods delivered after 9 p.m. It is proved also that tho passage referred to was lit up, that tho back entrance to tho other shop was open, and that there was a light in the oiher shop. I am satisfied that the second buildiuK is part and parcel of the other shop. The defendant broke tho law bv -delivering goods bought m the main shop. Defendant was convicted and fined £l, with £1 8s costs.