MANAIA NEWS

Taranaki Daily News, 14 December 1926, Page 2

MANAIA NEWS

MAGISTRATE’S COURT. (From Our Own Correspondent.) The final sitting of the Manaia Magistrate’s Court- for 1926 was held on Monday before Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M. Judgment for plaintiffs was given by default in the following undefended civil cases: —L. G. Nielson v. B. Kenny, £9 18s lid (costs £1 5s 6d); W. Lowery v. H. Epae, £4 18s 9d (13s); same V. Mrs. Johnny Robinson, £5 5s ( £ll. CLAIM FOR SMALL SUM. A. H. Yarrow sued A. P. Edwards for us (id. Mr. Lawrenee, for plaintiff, said that an account for 10s bd had been put into his firm’s hands for collection. The amount sued for was the charge for sending a legal demand and was opposed by the Law Society. Alfred Henry Yarrow, baker and confectioner, detailed the items of the account totalling 10s 6d for bread supplied. Defendant had first said he would pay and had then refused. Plaintiff had received 10s and had handed this to Wright and Lawrence in payment of their costs and had now determined to sue for the balance. Defendant said that he had not had a detailed statement. He had called in and asked for his account and had paid it.

The Magistrate said that he could not see how costs could be claimed by plaintiff before action. Air. Lawrence submitted legal argument to the effect that there was no defence. The Magistrate said that in this case the claim amounted really to a claim for damages for failure to pay. In his opinion solicitors’ fees could not be sued for as damages. He had 'almost had a principle fixed in his mind that the cost of letters before action could not be claimed from debtors. The fact that a claim was liquidated did not affect the case, nor did the faet that there was,or was not a good defence. The 'question was: Could costs before action be claimed ? As amicus curia Afr. B. Alalone said that his firm never charged the cost of a letter prior to action. The Magistrate pointed out already there were costs amounting to 15s depending on the action, and there was a disputed balance of 6d. Judgment would be entered for the plaintiff for 6d and 15s costs.

MAINTENANCE CASE.

Arthur Edward Albert Prince Hawes was proceeded against on a warrant from England by Eleanor Hawes, of Bromley, Kent, England, for £1 per week maintenance. Mr. Malone said that the order was made out on the ground of desertion, and he claimed that there was no evidence of desertion. He had been 14 years on board boats between London and Wellington, and had left his boat in 1924 with the idea of making a home for his wife and children. He had been offered a job cooking for 50 men providing his wife came out to New Zealand. She had refused to leave England. He had. had various contract cooking jobs since, but these had not paid well. He had frequently asked hie wife to come out. The defendant in evidence stated that lie had a cooking contract at Kapuni. Since January, 1924, he had not sent his wife any money. He had been .offered a job in Sydney at £5 per week and also his family’® passage would be paid. He had asked his wife to come out to New Zealand and desired to settle in the country since ■he considered that his children would have a better chanee. His wife had said she would not leave England whilst her mother was alive. She had said that she would not object to his settling in New Zealand providing he sent her money. The idea of being parted from her husband had not worried her much. He would not go so far as to say that she would be pleased. When he left the ship in Wellington he got a job flax'-eutting near Martinborough. He worked at that for one week and earned £3, paying £1 2s 6d board. The cook left, and witness took on the cooking contract and made about £2 10s per week for three months. He was then offered a permanent job to rook on contract for 50 men providing his wife came out and they worked as a married couple. He wrote to his wife and pointed out the. advantages of the job ,and asked her to cable her answer. She had not done SO. Coirtequently he had to leave the. job and went to Wanganui looking for employment but. failed to obtain any. He was three weeks out of work but then got a job cooking at £3 5s per week. This lasted until October, when he was again out of work until he got a pob at Rahotu, cooking at a flat rate of £1 5s per week with 16s 6d per week for each of nine men. He lost money on this contract. He then obtained a position as a hotel porter in New Plymouth at £2 10s per week and his board. He stayed I for about five months and then was out lof work for a month until he went to (Stratford, where he stopped for three months and then was out of work for six weeks until he got his present job at which he was making about £2 per week. He detailed the various occasions upon which he had offered his wife a home. He had always kept the police informed of his whereabouts and did not desire to elude any of his obligations. He had offered his wife £1 per week for six months in order to allow her time to make up her mind whether she would come to New Zealand or not. He had not eent any money since as he had wished to await her reply to this offer. He considered that his mother;in-law was the cause of the trouble. He did not frequent racecourses. To the Magistrate: He knew that in 1924 his wife did not want to leave her mother and left his ship with the idea of bettering himself. When he left the ship he left money in the bank in England which he had earned and which was banked in his wife’s name. The matter was then adjourned the next court day, pending the taking of further evidence.