MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 10939, 13 May 1926, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

- TEMUKA. Before Mr B. D. Mosley, S.M., At the Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday the following cases were dealt with, Sergeant Dwan conducting the cases for the police. PLACED ON PROBATION. , Walter Frederick Dempsey was charged that on the 6th February, 1926, at Arno, near Waimate, . he, did steal one lady’s bicycle and. one bicycle pump, to a total value of £8 18s 6d, the, property of one Robert Thomas Brue, of Waimate. Defendant,, pleaded guilty. ■; .Sergt.,-Dswin stated 'that defendant took the bicycle and rode it to Work there. It was reported missing to the police, and Brue kept a look-out, and saw defendant riding the bicycle, and he was summoned to appear at the Magistrate’s Court on the 20th April. Defendant came to Temuka, : and was located here by Constable ; SoUthworth. He was a married man with a wife and child,' And his position was -still open fo ‘him. To Mr Mosley: : No damage to the machine had been reported. Defendant stated he had come- in from'harvesting, and had about 19 miles to go, so he took the bicycle. Mr Mosley: It doesn’t say much for you taking another man’s machine. I am not being hard on you 'this time. Convicted and placed on probation for twelve months. ' WITHOUT A LtGHT.

’ ’•William Smith was charged with, on the 29th April, 1926, at Temuka, .riding a bicycle 'by night in Birkett street without a light. There was no appearance of defendant. - Constable South worth gave evidence, and defendant was convicted and fined Ids and costs.Erie Samuel Dougherty was charged that on the Ist May, 1926. in Vine street, Temuka, he dud ride a bicycle by night without a light. There was no appearance: of defend-, ant;--. ;

■Constable Southwortli gave evidence, and defendant: was convicted

‘antT fined 10s and costs. WITHOUT MOTOR NUMBERS. ‘Vfill|abif Ahglaiid ■ was charged

that., on -the 14th April, 1926, at ; Winchester*? .he did Tide a, motor cycle on the Winchester road with-: " out 'having the assigned numbers - on it. - Defendant' pleaded guilty. : , Sergt, Dwan gave the facts of i the case, statifig that defendant’s * bicycle had been repaired;. Defendant, told the Magistrate ■" he repaired ithe bicycle himself. - Defendant "was convicted and discharged. •• , - - WRONG MOTOR NUMBERS. . Francis Mervyn priddle was n; charged,. That on the, 2nd April, 1926, at Geraldine, he did affix to a motor cycle numbers other than ; V those . assigned- Defendant pleaded •i guilty. T Sergt. Dwan stated, that diefend-hn-t !l transfeVred the number ‘from his own bicycle to one lent to him by : Aiigland. Mr' Mosley: It was a silly thing ’ 'To transfer the num'ber ■ to a bor-

rowed machine, ; • Defendant was convicted and ordered to pay costs of iservice.lOs. ALLEGED DANGEROUS DRIVING. Robert Gordon Leadley was charged that on stfi April, 1926, at Temuka, he did’drive a motor-car in a dangerous manner in King St. Mr F„ J., Smith, appeared for the defendant, and pleaded guiljly, Sergt, Dwan stated: that the defendant was driving through Temuka at about thirty miles an hour. Defendant admitted, .travelling at about twentyTfive miles an hour. Mr Smith admitted the fact that defendant was travelling at about twenty-five miles per hour. -A Mr Mosley: That is a more honest admissionthan made by most ♦ : . 'nvotbrists, defendant will be convicted and fined £2 and costs. LICENSE SUSPENDED. . Pe'rcy Hollobon-was’charged that on the 6th April, 1926, at Temuka, * he did drive a motor-car in a dangerous manner In -King street. Defendant did not put in an appear- ... ance,

Constable Southworth deposed that he saw defendant travelling at at least 40 miles an hour. Lt was the fastest witness had, ever seen in Temuka.

'Sergeant , Dwan stated that defendant admitted travelling at between 20 and 25 miles an hour. Mr Mosley intimated that he would like to hear one of the witnesses present. If the rate of speed were supported, it was a very serious matter. Thomas Gunnion, carrier, of Temuka, gave evidence that he was on King street on the Mate of the offence, standing in front of Clements’ shop. The car flew past and Constable- Southworth and Mr White were; there and saw the car. It was going too Quickly. There were a lot of people about, and it was not a fair thing. He was among motor’ traffic a lot, and he would put the speed down at 35 miles an hour. I,n reply to Mr Mosley, witness stated the speed was absolutely too fast.

Mr Mosley: This sort of thing must be erated. i ' , Defendant ’ convicted and fined £5, and costs 29e, his license ’being suspended for three months.

alleged reckless driving. John Lowbrldge Bennett was charged, that-on 2nd April, at Winchester, he did drive a motor-car , / ...without llcense to do so, hi a .ptfbfic 'plado, to wit, the main road. ■' 1 ;■

He was ' also, chargedi that on 2-nd April, 1926, at Winchester, he did drive a motor-car in'; a reckless manner on the main south road. - Defendant pleaded guilty to being without a license, and noguilty to the second charge. John Deßenzy, farmer, Winchester, deposed., that he was driving towards Winchester in a Ford car at about 2.30 to 3 o’clock, on the left-hand side of the road on the beaten track, when a car came up very fast behind and passed him so closely—about 2 feet 6 inches from his,' mudguard—that his car threw ah amount of shingle into the wind screen and into the back seat. Two of his children were hit by flying shingle. 'Witness was travelling at about 15 miles per hour, and he estimated defendant’s car was going very hearly-three times as fast as he was.

To Sergt. Dwan: He made a complaint to the police, but he had no idea who it was, and he took the number. ,

To Mr Mosley: Thefe was a lot of loose shingle in the middle of the road.

Mrs Elena Elizabeth Deßenzy, wife of the preceding witness, said their car' wdV ‘ jusit going along slowly when the other car went past at a terrific rate.

To Mr Mosley; She got such a fright that she didn’t remember anything else; it all happened in a few seconds. The eldest girl said she was hit by some of the shingle. • Defendant stated that on the day in, question—a Sunday; afternoon he had been out for a drive, and he had to go on to the shingle on the road to pass Mr Deßenzy. He had no option but to go on to Hie shingle, and it was' quite probable that a stone might have hit the occupants of the other car. However, he had done nothing intentionally, and the balloon tyres lifted stones easily, an hour.

Mr Mosley; There are two ways of driving-—carefully and recklessly To Mr Mosley, witness stated hie car was a new Chrysler, and he had never travelled faster than 30 miles on hour.

Mr'Mosley:,ls it hot the boast of the Ch'rysler ’ agents' that Their cars can go 75 miles an hdur?

Witness replied that when bo passed the other car he was going 25 miles' an hour. ■ ■ ■

: Mr Mosley: Did yod look at the speedometer v

Witness; I have never travelled more than 30 miles an hour. I have had. a windscreen broken by stones lifted by the Tyres.

Mr Mo.sley: It is a bad piece' of road, and you ought to exercise more caution. Thirty miles was far tbo iast. I am a motorist and you are a motorist, and it behoves all motorists to be all the more careful. , : " ■

To Sergt. Dwan, witness stated he and Mr Deßenzy were quite good friends. .

Mr Mosley: Mr Deßenzy is only doing, his duty. Motorists will have to protect, themselves and 'the public, or something drastic ■ will have to be done! I am against this sort of thing. , ; ‘

In reference to the charge of driving' .without a license, Sergt. Dwah reported that the offices were closed for the Easter holidays and defendant had a reasonable excuse Defendant was conyiCtedj and discharged.

In dealing with the second.charge Mr Mosley said' he did not want to enter a conviction under the circumstances, but he hoped defendant would take a hint as all motorists should take a hint. He was not altogether defendant was driving recklessly,:so. the:charge was dismissed. ; Californian thistle. Maurice Leonard, of Temuka, was charged with failing to clear Californian thistle from land at Geraldine, - > Mr Walter Scott, Inspector of Noxious Weeds, conducted the case, and defendant pleaded not guilty, Mr W. G. Aspinall appeared for the defendant. Mr Scott deposed that notices had been sent to defendant, and at the final inspection on March 25 there was no sign of any work done. To Mr Aspinall: It had been sown in crops. The land was on the banks of the Orari, and, floods came down on it. The thistles were before the, floods. It was in crop at the time, but (defendant did not cut it.

William Ray, Government rabbiter at Geraldine, stated the land 'was in a bad state with thistles. The floods had been over it and . the crop was not worth cutting. 1 Defendant stated that, he had let the land to Mr Goodson, and the floods had been over it three or four times. He got notice: from; the Department, and he thought it referred to hie other property. He did not interfere with the Orari land, as he had let it to Goodson, .and couldn’t go on it because it was under lease. The crop was not cut because of logs deposited by floods, and the thistle could not be cut with a mower. There were no thistles there before the floods. Harold Goodson, contractor, said he had leased the land,, 25 acres in Orari, last June. There were only a few patches of thistle, ibut after the floods they seemed to be worse. He abandoned the place on the 9th January. He'couldn’t cut the crop. The thistle could be cut with a hook and a mower in places. To Mr Mosley, Mr ; Scott said it was valuable land. The Magistrate said there were and the ratepayers had- their own quite a lot of prosecutions lately,

remedy by approaching the County Council to have Californian thistle removed from -the schedule of the Noxious Weeds Act. Otherwise the Agricultural Department must insist on the destruction of the thistle. Farmers themselves were liable to a fine of £2O. Defendant was convicted and fined 10 s and costs |Bs. MAINTENANCE CASE. Mr W. G Campbell, of Timaru, appeared for complainant in the case against Henry Newitt, of Timaru, butcher, who admitted paternity of a child born on'the Ist March, 1926. An order was made for the payment of £6 6s expenses and 12s 6d per week maintenance,, APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF ORDER. An application was made by Andrew Webb for a variation of an order made by W. R. McKean, Esq., S.M., on the 4th November, 1919, whereby he was ordered to pay to Helen Jane Webb 15s per week. The application was made on acc v it of a change of circumstances. Mr F. J. Smith appeared for the applicant, and Mr F. A. Joynt (Joynt and Walker) for Mrs Webb. Mr Smith stated that the maintenance, was in arrears about £lB. Webb was now an old man 73 yeprs of age, and was earning £1 per week. He came to New Zealand as an early settler, and was in failing health.

Mr Smith handed into Court employment and medical certificates.

Andrew Webb deposed; that his wages were £1 per week, and he was 73 years of age. His children were all grown, up, and his youngest soft stayed with Mrs Webb. His son ought to be able' to support his mother. He had been attended by Dr. Scannell and his health had not been good for the last three or four winters. During his lifetime 'he had given suras of money to his wife andi he was sure his wife had something in the bank. To Mr Mosley; Three of his sons were in the electrical department of the railways in jhe North Island. They were not all married, and he couldn’t say what they were earning, ,but they were getting good wages. .One son was married and living in Christchurch. He had been living .with his wife, but was not going to any longer. Mr Mosley: They have got a separation order and they are living together.

Mr Joynt said, he didn’t know there Was a separation order. He knew Webb came into the same house every week-end. Mr Mosley said it was rather curious. They had broken the separation order, that was clear. The three sons in the electrical department' must he getting fair wages, and he thought they might be communicated with, because if they were going to live apart’Tie could not compel Webb to pay 15s a week out of , a wage of £l. The case was adjourned for a month, to 22nd. June, to see what could be done, Mr Mosley saying it was a pity to ventilate their grievances in Court. CIVIL CASES.

A number of cases were struck, out, and three adjourned. Judgment by default was given in the following cases:—Blyth and Co. (Mr F. J. Smith) v. Wright Bros ~ claim £2O 17s lOd, Court costs £2 19s, solicitor’s fee £2 11s Gd; Canterbury Farmers’ Co-op. Assn. (Mr F. J. Smith) v. Geo. Mcßratney, claim £2, 2s Gd, Court costs Ss, solicitor’s fee 15s Gd; same v. H. H. Ross, claim £5 7s Bd, costs 15s, solicitor’s fee 15s Gdi. In the judgment summons H. and T. Harrison (Mr F. J. Smith) v. J. Titheridge, an order was made for £1 per month, the first payment to ibe made on the 25th May. NO ORDER MADE,

In the judgment summons, A. C. Watson (Mr F. J. Smith) v. Thos. Moses, in which judgment was given on the 9th February for £ls Is, defendant deposed that he had spent very little since that 'date. He had had a 100 acre farm for dairying and cropping, but the; farm was no longer his since the Government seized it. He got no money from the proceeds of the sale. He went at Easter to the North Island looking for work. His fare was £3 16s lid by rail and £2 by boat. About twenty of his friends gave him a party to which they came to give his wife a presentation, and they were given a light supper. He got £59 9s from the Government for cutting the crops, out of which he had to pay ‘for labour, twine and cutting an area of 41 acres. He cleared £l4 odd for himself. He had a family of five, three going to school. He was just looking after the place until it was sold. No order was made. DEFENDED CASE. In the defended case between Harold Goodson, “Willow Glen,” Clandehoye, farmer, . and George Cadwallader and Thomas Cadwallader, of the firm of Cadwallader Bros., of Clandeboye, farmers, Mr F. J. Smith appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Walker (Messrs Joynt and Walker) for defendants. This was a case in which a rehearing was granted at the last sitting of the Magistrate’s Court, conditionally on defendants paying into Court £165 pending the result of the action.

The statement of claim set out ploughing from October 12 th to 27th, 1925, £29, 2s, less horse feed and meals £9, :! £2.0 2s; and March, 1926, to estimated yield of twentythree acres of ground leased by the plaintiff from the defendants for a crop of oats, after allowing for de-

fendants’ share as bushel rent, 600 bushels at 4s 6d, £l3is, making a total of £155 2s. ;

Mr Walker stated that defendants admitted the first part of tke claim for £2O 2s, but submitted that the second part of the claim must fail.

-Mr Smith submitted that tlio cause of the action was the bushel rent whereby a man leases a paddock and receives as rent onequarter of the grain crop. The land was 23 acres near Oravi owned by Cadwallader Bros, and leased- by plaintiff from defendants as per an agreement dated sth September, 1925. The plaintiff did. not get possession, of. the crop on account of the mortgagee taking possession of the property, and plaintiff was unable to enter and cut the crop.

T. A'. Sheen, of Messrs Capper and Sheen, Temuka, deposed that he dealt largely with grain, and during the month of February the price of A. grade Carton oats was 4s 4d per bushel, and undergrade oats at 3s lOd or 3s lid. To-day the price was about 3s Gd. Harold Coodson, the plaintiff, a farmer of Claude bo ye, stated that he leased the land from Cadwalladef Bros, in terms of the agreement. Cadwallader Bros, were id'get 1 oh'& quarter of- the gram and half the straw, which was so poor that he did not put it in the statement of claim. It was an average crop. He saw Thos. Cadwallader and discussed the difficulty of getting possession of the land, and Cadwallader said he was making arrangements to pay the mortgage so that witness would have possession of the crop. Cadwallader had said he thought the crop would'thresh out 35 bushels to the acre. He went to cut the crop on 15th February, when be met Austin, who said the crop belonged to him.

To Mr Walker: The arrangement was for the benefit of both. The land belonged to Cadwallader Bros, and all plaintiff had tQ do was to put in the crop. William Taylor, a farmer at Milford, stated he had 23 or 24 acres of oats this year, and he got 5 b bushels of oats to the acre. His neighbours got ;G0 bushels per acre. He had land that he leased at bushel rent at Temuka, which was put in crop and yielded 70 bushels? to the acre. Witness got one bushed in four.

To Mr Walker, witness stated he did not know anything about Cad■wallader’s land.

N. G. Allenby, a millowner, of Temuka, gave evidence that he had been engaged by Mr Harold Good; son to thresh his paddock of oats out of the stock, at Orari. He hail been threshing oats this year in the district, and it was a good croppitit year, the average yield being 40 bushels to the acre, , • To Mr Walker: He had been .oyera the land in question,' and in far!' seasons it would grow 30- to 40 bushels to the acre.

Mr Walker submitted that the defendants 1 had no case to answer. Cadwalladers had received none of the crop, and not a penny for it. Before plaintiff could succeed, he must prove an express or implied covenant for 'quiet enjoyment of the land . There was obviously no such covenant in. the agreement, and plaintiff had not proved an implied covenant. He submitted, therefore, that plaintiff should be non-suited. Mr Mosley said it was quite clear the action was wrongly framed, as the alleged lease wasn’t a lease. The only action that could be sustained was an action for damages.

Judgment was given by consent of the Court for the plaintiff for the sum of £2O 2s, costs of Court £1 10s, and solicitor’s fee £2 2s. Plaintiff accepted a non-suit with regard to the item of £135 in the statement of claim, with costs to defendant, solicitor’s: fee £3 3s, witness’ expenses £2 5s and Court costs OS. (Before Messrs A. R. La wry and . W. E. Evans, J.P’s). ! A VALUELESS CHEQUE. At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning a charge was preferred against Charles Lees, alias George Scott, that on the 11th May, 1926, at Temuka, he did attempt to obtain from George Henry Clements one pound by means of a false pretence, to wit, a valueless cheque drawn by George Scott in' Charles Scott, knowing the same to be false, with intent to induce the said George Henry Clements to act upon it as if it were genuine. Sergeant Dwau appeared for the police. Defendant elected to be dealt with by the lower Court, and pleaded guilty. Sergt. Dwan, in outlining the case, stated that defendant was a stranger to Temuka, and went to Stapleton’s Hotel and obtained a blank cheque. He filled it in and tried to cash it at Mr Clements’. Mr Clements was suspicious, and rang up the bank and found there was no account there. Defendant cleared out and was arrested at Waitohi the previous night, and denied everything until seen by Mr Clements. The police found the cheque on defendant. According to defendant’s story, he was a married man with a family of three, and had been out of work for twelve months. He hadn’t done any work owing to the thumb of his left hand being torn out of its, socket. The police knew nothing about him. To the Bench, defendant stated this was the first time he had- ever done anything like it Jn his life. His home was in Dunedin, and he

had been working for Dunkley Bros,, contractors to the City Council. He had been out of work for twelve months, and had been in hospital for about six mouths. He received '£2ls 14s compensation for his hand last December. He was employed by the Corporation when the accident occurred. His hospital expenses had been over £4O, and he had lots of other debts to pay after coming out of hospital. He had to go into hospital again to get another finger 01.

;oiaoE

The Bench intimated that they were not quite satis lied with defendant’s story, and would 'give him an .opportunity to prove his case. They were loath to send him to gaol, so would remand defendant in custody for seven days, until a report could he obtained about hiiiu After consideration the Justices decided to give defendant a chance, and entered a conviction and ordered him to come up for sentence when called upon within twelve months. '