OPUNAKE COURT CASES

Taranaki Daily News, 18 January 1930, Page 13

OPUNAKE COURT CASES

THE MONTHLY SITTING. VARIED LIST OF CASES. The monthly sitting of the Magistrate’s Court was held at Opunake yesterday, Mr. R. VV. Tate, S.M., presiding. In the following civil cases, there being no appearance of defendant, judgment was given for planitiff: —R. E. Peat v. R. Toss, £1 3s 6d (costs £1 15s 6d); A. P. Newport and J. Allen, £4 14s Id (£1 7s 6d); R. E. Peat v. L. Page, £8 (£1 14s 6d); A. P. Newport v. Western Matahaere, £1 Ils (£1); Taranaki Hospital Board v. William Kearney, £7 10s (£1 10s 6d); C. A. Trotter v. Ambrose Fowler, £4 14s (£1 IDs 6d).

In judgment summons cases, there being no appearance of judgment debtor, Taki Williams was ordered to pay A. McKeown the sum of £l3 19s and costs £1 Is forthwith, in defualt 13 days’ imprisonment, and to pay Reid and Gray £lO 15s and costs £1 Is forthwith, in default ten days’ imprisonment. BREACHES OF LICENSING ACT. A SERIES OF PROSECUTIONS. A visit by Constable Clouston to the Club Hotel, Opunake, at 10.15 p.m. on Saturday, December 21, and the discovery in the commercial room of four men with evidences of having been served with drinks, was responsible for a number of charges of breaches of the licensing law being dealt with before Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M., at the Opunake Magistrate’s Court yesterday. J. M. Turnbull, licensee of the hotel, for whom Mr. Fouhy appeared and pleaded guilty, was charged with hvaing kept open for the sale of liquor at a time when the premises should, be closed, an alternative charge of .selling liquor at such a time being withdrawn. The barman, L. J. Paterson, who was not represented by counsel, pleaded guilty to a charge that being a person other than the licensee he did sell liquor to four persons at a time when the premises were required to be closed. The four men concerned, W. W. Vickery, who appeared- and pleaded guilty, J. O’Rorke jun., M. Fleming and J. Bennett, who did nto appear, were charged with being illegally on licensed premises. Dealing first with the case against the licensee, Constable Clouston said that it wolud be admitted that the drinks were supplied by the barman, who was very frank about the matter. The licensee was upstairs ill at the time and so was his wife.

Mr. Foully sai.d that the licensee, who had suffered a good deal from ill-health since he went to Opunake, being now in hospital at Palmerston North, was in bed unwell at the time and his wife was attending to him. The barman, without the consent or knowledge of the licensee, supplied the drinks. • The magistrate: Then you plead guilty to a technical offence. L. J. Paterson, the barman, in reply to the magistrate, said that seeing that it was the Saturday before Christmas he thought it was quite the usual thing for the police to show a little leniency and when the four men who were on their way home asked him for a drink, though a little doubtful, he supplied them as they were good customers. To the magistrate witness stated that he had been ten years in a bar, the magistrate remarking that he should know quite well that the drinks should not have been served. Dealing with the cases against the four men, Constable (Houston said that all were quite honest about the matter, admitting that they had gone into the hotel to have a drink. The magistrate, in convicting the men, said that they were the real offenders, inasmuch as they asked for the drink. They were each fined £l, with costs 10s, except in the case of M. Fleming, where the costs were 12s. The licensee and barman were each convicted and fined respectively 10s and20s, with costs 10s in each case. FENCING CLAIM. PLAINTIFF NON-SUITED. A ; non-suit was entered in' the csae in which A. ! McKeown, a well-known settler of Piliama( represented by Mr. C. 0. Edmonds), claimed £2O from J. Templeton (Mr. J. Houston), being half the cost of erecting 25 chains of boundary fence between the two properties. Plaintiff gave evidence that his property adjoined the "Opunake railway reserve, which had for some years been occupied by defendant, who was the owner of the adjoining pioperty. Plaintiff purchased portion of that reserve at auction. There was a. boundary fence between plaintiff’s property and the reserve. When plaintiff had purchased a truck of hardwood posts, defendant approached him regarding the erection of a boundary fence between the property, stating that he would prefer a five-wire fence. Witnss, while preferring a live fence, agreed to a wire fence, but insisted that it should have seven wires. Defendant offered no objection,, though he had two months to qbject... The cost of the fence was £4O. This included labour, for which witness paid £lO. ‘ He gave the contractors the use of a tent and food; for which no, charge was made. Plaintiff stated that when, he received, a letter through the solicitor defendant objected ■ on the grounds that' the ,old fence on the original boundary should have been removed, but as it had been erected fourteen years witness did not consider it was worth removal. The magistrate: Did defendant agree to the seven wires? Plaintiff; He couldn’t do anything else. Mr. Houston: That is just our defence, sir. He could not do anything else. The magistrate: 1 understand that yon told him you would erect the fence with seven wires and as defendant did not object you erected the fence. You did not get- him to sign— Plaintiff: Pardon me, Your Worship, as an old settler 1 would be ashamed to ask a neighbour to sign anything. ‘.The magistrate; It would save a lot ■of trouble, you know, if you did. Mr. Houston, in applying for a nonsuit, said that having failed to exercise his rights under the Fencing Act, plaintiff must prove a contract, either in-writing or verbal. No evidence had been advanced to show that a contract had been entered into. The magistrate said that it might not have required much evidence to support

the contention that defendant had signto pay half the cost of removal of the old fence, but in the case of a new fence there must be definite evidence to show that defendant had agreed to pay. In the • absence of that definite evidence plaintiff must be non-suited. Costs, £2 2s, were allowed. ■ •'. SHAREMILKING CASE. NON-SUIT ENTERED. The hearing of a case commenced on the previous court day, in which Christopher Thompson (Mr. Fouhy) sued Thomas F. Graham (Mr. P. O’Dea) for £27 15s 2d in connection with a sharemilking agreement and the defendant counter-claimed for £3O, was concluded. Evidence for the plaintiff had been taken and Mr. O'Dea had applied for a non-suit on the grounds that the claim was debarred by reason of the fact that the contract was for more than a year and was not in writing. Yesterday Mr. Fouhy submitted that the non-suit point did not cover the whole of the items claimed. The bonus of £l3 3s 2d referred to a contract covering five years, and of course the nonsuit point’ would apply. He held, however, that : it did not cover the repairs to the house, £lO, wire-netting £1 10s, and a sow, £2 10s. These were agreements made after the original contract, Mr. O’Dea submitted that all the items were co-related to the contract,

all hinging on the sharemilking agreement. It was impossible to separate the items.

Mr. Fouhy said that the claim was not made entirely on the sharemilking agreement. There were four individual and separate items of claim and the evidence applied to all of them. The magistrate held that the agreement of service being bad the other items if connected with it fell with it also. It seemed to Him, therefore, that the whole arrangement was a contract that came within the Statute of Frauds because it was for more than a year and was not in writing, so was therefore not enforceable. People should understand that all agreements for more than a year should be in writing, otherwise they ran a risk. A sharemilker put himself in the positioji that he could only sue for the actual value of his services.

A non-suit was entered bn both the claim and counter-claim, without costs.