MARTON S.M. COURT.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXVI, Issue 10476, 11 October 1912, Page 5

MARTON S.M. COURT.

THURSDAY. ‘ (Before Mr Kerr,J £f,M.) Hallenstien Bros. , £l6 10s judgement summons, v. Keeni Pararihi, defendant ordered to pay forthwith 1 or in default 17 days’ imprisonment. M. R. Greenwood .(Mr Cook) v. A. Greenwood (Mr Gollins) claim under the Destitute Persons Act by plaintiff for assistance towards the maintenance of her two children grandparents residing in Sonthbridge, owing to plaintiff's husband being in a,mental hospital. A portion of|the evidence had bee» taken in the’Southi‘in which defendant stated that owing to his age he was unable to satisfactorily work his farm, and having contributed towards his son in the- mental hospital he could not afford to contribute to the help of the children. Plaintiff stated that she was living with her mother, who- helped ‘ to keep the children out of a small income which she could ill-afford. Plaintiff was receiving a few shillings weekly from rent, but with this and her mother’s help she was unable to manage as her health was not sufficiently good to permit her doing,much work. The Magistrate said there appeared to be distressing circumstances on both sides. Mr Cook suggested that the amount now paid to the State for , the patient in the hospital might be given to the-up-keep of the children and the State bear the whole cost of the patient. Mr Collins agreed ' that such an arrangement would he acceptable. The Magistrate said at the present time he was not prepared to make the order pending receipt of further information from defendant. He very much. questioned whether defendant could contribute towards the children.

Charles W. - Pollington (Mr Collins) v. Edgar-Galpin (MrLadley), claim £4 4s for services performed by plaintiff; at defendant’s request in conveying a portable engine from “Woodlands” (Marton) to Makowhai, two days at £2 2s per day. The defendant stated that he merely acted as an agent in giving instructions where the engine was to be delivered to and. informed plaintiff that he was not responsible for the payment. The parties to whom theengine were delivered’subsequently got into difficulties and at the present time could not be trarced. An amount of £2 10s -had been forwarded by Mr Goodall as trustee for the parties to whom the engine was delivered. The Magistrate held that the plaintiff was not quite clear in his evidence as to the instructions he received to deliver the- engine. It was quite clear that defendant acted as the agent in giving instructions where to deliver the engine. The action was evidently brought under a misapprehension, as Galpin’s" solicitation for plaintiff in placing the work in dns hands had been twisted into ,a liability. Judgment for defendant and costs. ’ Inthe case of W. H. Smith v. E. D. Bohen, the money having been paid after the issue of the summons bat before defendant knew it had been issued, plaintiff’s solicitor 'applied for Court fees on the summons, but |the Magistrate declined to allow this on the ground that the action'should have been taken in the Palmerston Court. Defendantthen claimed train fare and expenses, but on being sworn as to amount of expenses incurred it appeared that he had travelled to Marton on a press ticket. His Worship . held that he was not entitled to train fare and allowed him 2s for expenses.