MAGISTRATES COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 4 July 1924, Page 2

MAGISTRATES COURT.

NEW PLYMOUTH SITTING. CIVIL BUSINESS. The weekly sitting of the New Plymouth Magistrate’s Court was held yesterday, Mr. A. M. Mowlem, S.M., presiding. Judgment by default was awarded plaintiff in the following undefended cases: E. L. Humphries v. W. Simpson, £2 Is (£1 3s Gd); Maud A. Stqite v. G. V. Martin, £lO 12s 6d (£2 16s) ; Mackie Logan, Caldwell, Ltd. v. J. Mansor, £155 10s 9d (£7 17s); T. Ridd Co., Ltd. v. B. S. Eathorn £54 3s 5d (£4 19s 6d); W. Harris v. A. D. Wylie, £2 2s (£1 5s 6d); E. J. Ward v. W. Archibald, £l7 6s (£2 17s); T. A. Berridge v. A. H. Hurley, £3 (£1 3s 6d). At die suit of A. Boswell, Bertha Faire was ordered to pay £2 3s 6d forthwith, in default, three days’ imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended provided 10s a week was paid in reduction of the debt. Fred Fox and Florence Agnes Fox were ordered to deliver the possession of a tenement to John Knight Hawkins or his agents on or before the 13th inst. KILLING PROTECTED GAME. Three young natives, named Rongo Mark, To Hotu and Etai Taylor, pleaded guilty to shooting native pigeons at Mohakatino on June 19. To Hotu was also charged with obstructing a ranger (G. Waterson) in the carrying out of his duties, to which charge To Hotu also pleaded guilty. Mr. R. H. Quilliam, who appeared for the defendants, stated that they had no idea that Waterson was a ranger and that the obstruction charge against Hotu was purely a technical one, as although the defendant went away when the ranger wanted to search him, he returned shortly afterwards when the others had already confessed their guilt to Waterson. Hotu did not take any part in the actual shooting of the birds. Rongo Mark and Etai Taylor were each fined £3 and costs amounting to £1 17s 6d, while To Hotu, on the charge of killing protected game, was convicted and discharged, but on the charge of obstructing the ranger was fined £lO and costs £1 17s 6d. BREACHES OF BY-LAWS. Proceedings were taken by the borough inspector (Mr. R. Day) against Thos. W. awe for riding a motor cycle along Devon Street in front of the Everybody’s Theatre at abou' 30 miles per hour. Mr. A. A. Bennett, who appeared for Rowe, asked for leniency in this case, as Rowe had promised not to give any further trouble to the authorities by his craze for speeding. Rowe was convicted and ordered to pay the costs, 7s. Edward Anthony was fined 10s and costs 7s for riding a bicycle along the footpath in Cutfield Road. Dr. Edie Browne was fined 10s and costs 7s for allowing his car to stand in the street unlighted at night. H. E. Cudby, J. Gibson and G. T. Langley were also fined 10s and costs 7s for similar offences. CLAIM AGAINST CONTRACTOR. A claim was made by J. G. M. Russell (Mr. C. H. Croker), brick layer and builder, New Plymouth, against C. Moore (Mr. L. M. Moss), builder and contractor, Stratford, for the sum of £122 5s 8d for labour done in connection with the Public Trust buildings at Stratford. A counterclaim was made for £95 2s, being expenses caused by the alleged failure to properly supervise the work which it was contended was negligently and improperly done. In August, 1923, the parties entered into an agreement whereby the plaintiff was to provide labour (to be paid for by the defendant) for the brick work which was to be done in connection with the Public Trust building. On the whole >f the cost of labour and materials entailed through the erection of the brick work, the plaintiff was to receive 7J per cent, commission. For the defence, it was claimed that the conditions of the agreement had been carried out and the whole cost of labour and materials came to £1350 12s 6d, on which the sum of £lOl 6s was claimed by Russell as being commission on that amount at 71 per cent., .as stated in ,he agreement. The plaintiff further claimed £2O 19s 8d for scaffolding supplied to the defendant, making in all a claim of £122 5s Bd. On the matter of that portion of the counter claim dealing with the alleged lack of supervision, various arguments were put forward by the defence, which it contended proved that Russell was not a sub-contractor and had never done any supervision of the work of the building. Moore had even discharged a workman for some reason or other without consulting plaintiff. Under the orders of Moor e much work was done which did not satisfy the architect, with the result that it all had to be pulled down and re-constructed. Plaintiff did not have access to the plans, Moor o having full charge of the work. The case was adjourned until 10.30 a.m. this morning.