SM. Court.

Te Aroha News, Volume XXVII, Issue 4378, 25 February 1909, Page 2

SM. Court.

(Before F. J. Burgess, Esq., S.M.) A sitting of the above Court took place on Tuesday last, 23rd, when the following cases were dealt with : Nicholls v A. Johansen, claim £1 13s, balance for wages due. Judgment for amount with costs. ' McLean v. Tutaro Williams, claim £lB (is 4d. Judgment for amount with costs £2 2s (id.

F. W. Boynton v. Burlton Beunet, claim for £(5. Mr Allen for plaintiff. Judgment by default with costs. McLean and Co. v, Ripie, claim £2 19s 4d. Judgment for amount with costs £1 14s. Mr Gilchrist appeared for plaintiff.

A. Dearie v. C. 0. Fair, claim £7, balance rue on cheque. Mr Porritt for plaintiff. Judgment for amount with costs £2 3s (id. . _ j A. Dearie v. A. Johansen, claim £2 15 i j for rent of cottage. Judgment for amount and costs. <

G Dvey v. A. Poole, claimed (he sum of £ls for repairing and painting buggy. Mr S. S. Allen appeued for plaintiff and

Mr P. Gilchrist for defendant,

The plaintiff’s evidence was to the effect that the Buggy met with a mishap opposite his workshop sometime ago, »ud that he had been instructed by the defendant to put (he buggy in order and make a good job of it. This he did and the price charged was very reasonable. Why he put the job in so cheap was that Poole gave him to understand that the work would be paid for as soon as coi% pleted. E. Devey, corroborated his father’s evidence, and added that although he had made frequent applications for the money, he could not get it. Defendant never expressed himself as dissatisfied with the quality of the work put in the buggy. The defendant, A. E. Poole, in his evidence stated that he purchased the buggy for £2O. It was a second-hand one, and at that time was in fairly good order. He considered the price charged very excessive, and the workmanship very ordinary. D McL. Wallace and N. Peters also gave evidence for defendant, both being of opinion that the charges were exces • sive.

Judgment was given for tbe amount paid into Court, .£lO. No costs were allowed.

Strange Bros’, v. Farrow.—This was a claim and counterclaim, wherein Strange Bros sued Farrow for £l4 2s 8d for flax supplied. Farrow claimed £l2O for breach of contract, wherein Strange Bros promised to deliver to plaintiff some 300 tons of flax within a certain period. Mr McDairrnaird appeared for Mr Farrow and Mr P. Gilchrist for Messrs Strange Bros. The evidence of both parties was of a very contradictory nature.

The evidence wenttoshjw that some arrangement had been entered into by Strange Bros, to supply Farrow with flax, but owing to the unprecedented floods that occurred during the season—whereby the major portion of Strange Bros’, farm was under water for some weeks and the whole of the flax practically destroyed, they were unable to supply the flax.

Farrow contended that flax had been supplied to another party. It was pointed out that this flax was taken off Scott’s property adjoining, only a very small portion was cut off Strange’s It was late at night when the Court ended, and the Magistrate reserved his decision till next Court day. PROHIBITED PERSON'S.

Two prohibited persons were charged on the information of Constable Mackle with having liquor in their "possession . and also with being drunk. Each [ offender was fined £1 and costs, or in default seven day’s imprisonment. In connection with the above cases a person named Win. Meek, who failed , to appear, was charged with procuring liquor for prohibited persons. Constable Mackle, in his evidence, said he was quite satisfied that' Meek brought the ' liquor in question, and gave conclusive evidence to that effect. The Palace Hotel barman gave evidence as to selling accused liquor, and E. Timmins swore to seeing Meek take the liquor across to the j prohibited person’s shop. | Accused was fined £5 and costs £1 10s, : or in default one month’s imprisonment. I