GORE NEWS

Southland Times, Issue 24602, 26 November 1941, Page 2

GORE NEWS

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

(Before Mr R. C. Abernethy, S.M.)

Judgment was entered for the plaintiffs by default in the following civil cases: National Mortgage and Agency Co., Ltd. v. James Stancombe (Outram), for £2B/14/3, costs £4/9/6; MacGibbon and Co., Ltd. v. Mrs Louisa Patterson for costs only 6/-; S. McDonald Ltd. v. V. H. Pepperell (Auckland), for £2/8/-, costs £l/3/6. Stanley Wesney Kirk, of Wyndham, was proceeded against by the Transport Department (Mr C. C. W. Clarke) on a charge of driving a car in a dangerous manner on the Mataura-Wyndham road. The defendant, who is jn camp, did not appear. He was convicted and fined £2, costs 10/-. CHARGE OF THEFT

A young woman, aged 21, whose name was suppressed, appeared on two charges of theft. The defendant was represented by Mr E. C. Smith, who entered pleas of guilty on each charge. Constable C. Matheson, who prosecuted, stated that the defendant was a single woman. She had visited the home of a friend at Gore and had stolen the sum of £lO. Later she had gone to the home of another friend at Charlton and had stolen the sum of £5 when left alone in a room. Restitution of the money had since been made. The defendant came of respectable parents and had not been before the Court previously. Mr Smith said that the defendant came of a good home and had received a good education. For no apparent reason she had yielded to temptation and when approached by the police she had frankly admitted the charges. She had also told her employer and haa resigned her position. Counsel suggested that the Court should show lenience and he also requested the suppression of the defendant’s name.

The Magistrate told the defendant that he was going to give her a complete chance and he advised her to make the most of it. The defendant’s name was suppressed and she was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence on each charge if called upon within 12 months. CLAIM FOR POSSESSION Sarsfield Lynch, a farmer, of Riversdale, proceeded against William C. Stewart, a lorry driver, of Riversdale, for possession of a house and property. The plaintiff was represented by Mr S. D. MacDonald and Mr E. C. Smith appeared for the defendant. The plaintiff, in evidence, said that he had bought the property about 12 months ago. He had notified the defendant that he required possession. He wanted the house for a married couple. He had also told the defendant about a house he could obtain, but the latter had said that it was not good enough for him. The witness said that he had. a farm of 1400 acres, 395 of which were under cultivation. He did not have enough employees on the farm and the only way he could get labour was by taking a married couple. It was essential to supply a married couple with accommodation and that was the reason why he required the property. S. D. Blomfield, a member of the Southland Primary Production Council, gave evidence that the plaintiff had a highly productive farm property. Part of the council’s job was to endeavour to secure farm labour and the witness stated that it was impossible to obtain any labour other than married couples.

The defendant said that he did not know of any other house he could obtain. He would be only too willing to move if he could obtain another house. The Magistrate said that if he could see his way clear to do so he would give the plaintiff possession. However, there was not sufficient evidence that alternative accommodation was available for the defendant. The plaintiff was non-suited, the defendant being allowed costs. FENCING DISPUTE A dispute under the terms of the Fencing Act was brought before the Court and after a hearing which lasted for about four hours the Magistrate adjourned the case until next Court day, December 16. He stated that he would inspect the property that day with the parties concerned. The plaintiff was John Williams, a farmer, of Mataura, and the defendants were Edward James Humphries and James Edward Humphries, farmers, of Mataura. The plaintiff was represented by Mr S. D. MacDonald and Mr E. C. Smith appeared for the defendants.

The question in dispute was the removal by the defendants of part of the existing fence along the Waimumu stream, the boundary between two lots of land. The parties were unable to agree upon the line of the fence on either side of the boundary and the defendants refused to re-erect the fence, WOMEN’S GOLF The draw of the Gore Ladies’ Golf Club for a bogey match to be played on the Croydon links this evening is as follows:—Mrs Hain v. Miss D. Hoffman; Mrs G. Mitchell v. Mrs J. Ross; Mrs J. Steans v. Mrs W. Young; Mrs A. V. Latty v. Mrs B. Hoffman; Miss A. Mcßride v. Miss A. Thompson; Miss E. Graham v. Miss Rhodes; Miss K. Kelly v. Miss J. Perry; Miss D. Perry v. Miss Fox; Miss Monaghan a bye. APPEAL BOARD

A sitting of the No. 6 Armed Forces Appeal Board will begin at Gore next Monday and it will continue until Thursday, December 4. The number of appeals set down for hearing is 89.