MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16736, 18 May 1922, Page 8

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

CHRISTCHURCH. TO-DAY’S CASES. (Before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M.). DR UNKENNESS. A first offender for drunkenness was fined the amount of his bail, 20s. SMITH ,OR HARRIS P Natalie Smith or Harris, 45 years of age, appeared on remand on a charge that on May 14, 1922, at Sydenham, she stole meat valued at 3s and two packets of washing powder, valued at sd, the property of Robert Charles Morrison. Accused had been remanded so that enquiries could be made regarding her, but this morning Senior Sergeant Lewin stated that the police had been unable to find out much about accused. She had made a number of statements to the ]>olice which had proved to be untrue, such as that she was the wife of James Smith of Halswell. Accused had been living in Sydenham under the name of Harris. The Rev. P. Re veil, Court Missionary said accused informed him that her maiden name was Streeter, and that she had married a man named Harris who was now dead. Asked if she had anything to say. accused replied that she wanted to get off. The Magistrate: That is what they all say. In reply to another question accused said her name was Harris. The Magistrate: "Why did you tell the police your name was Smith ? Accused : Because I was living with a sister of that name. Senior Sergeant Lewin : She was boarding with a Mrs Hnrdinge, not with a Mrs Smith. The Magistrate said accused should be under some observation. She would be convicted and placed on probation for twelve months. CIVIL BUSINESS. UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment for the plaintiff by default with costs was given in each of the following undefended civil cases:—The Hal swell Quarries Ltd., v It. Cummins £2 ss ; Adams Ltd. v. N. E Hughes, £ls 15s 3d ; Tvson Hodgson v. Cecil Hallidav, £2 8s 7d : Cooper Bros v. E. L. Smith £2 15s 6d ; Booth, Macdonald, Co., Ltd. v. Joseph Price, £lO 15s; Michael Thomas Henley v. John Millen, £7O 16s 8d ; Dainties Ltd., v. O. J. Chivers, £l2 0s 7d. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. Angus Gordon Foster, who did not appear was ordered to pay forthwitli to Adams Bruce. Ltd. (Mr T. AY. Rowe) a debt of £7 18s Id, in default seven days’ imprisonment. A FAMILY SQUABBLE. Catherine Couch (Mr. R. H. Livingstone) of Rapnki, a widow, proceeded against her brotlier-in-law, William Edward Crane (Mr. E. AY. White), farmer of Kaiapoi for £75 for ail alleged breach of agreement. According to the claim the agreement set out, that defendant should, on or before May 1, 1920, yield up to plaintiff possession of a farm at Kaiapoi and leave all buildings aud improvements with the exception of a cowbyre with its plant and machinery, which Crane was at liberty to remove. Defendant was to erect in its place a four bail cowshed. He had removed his byre, but had failed to erect another. Therefore plaintiff claimed £75. Defendant counter claimed for £45, the .price of throe cows which defendant said belonged to him and which plaintiffff had in her possession. Air. Livingstone said defendant had paid £25 into Court. Tho agreement between the parties had not been stamped but if it was admitted as evidence. Ho would see that the stamp dutv and tho £5 penalty was paid. This course was agreed to. Plaintiff said that in 1907 she arranged to let defendant take over her farm of fourteen acres at Kaiapoi for four or five years, rent free. Defendant was to work the place for plaintiff and her family. AYith the farm defendant took over three cows an a trap and horse. She did not charge him for these. In 1908, defendant wished to take over another fourteen acres and plaintiff lent him £SO to pay' for the rent for two years. Tn 1910. plaintiff gave defendant eight heifers free of cost. She had helped defendant in this way because she thought he would help her .and her fatmJy. In 1911, defendant repaid her £25 of the loan of £SO, but he had not yet repaid the balance. In 1915, defendant returned the horse and trap. In 1919, plaintiff went up to Kaiapoi because she heard defendant was neglecting {his wife, plaintiff’s sister. To appease plaintiff, defendant gave her three cows. Later plaintiff heard that defendant had left liis wife for another woman and she then decided to terminate the arrangement between them regarding the farm. They then entered into tho agreement in question. Jo Air. White : Defendant had erected a four-roomed house, an eight stalled stable and a garage on the place. Those all belonged to her. She did not think she had £BOO worth of improvements on the farm. Defendant had put a water supply and electric light throughout the place. Defendant had at various times given her or lier family' various sums of money amounting to £79. However thie was all the money she had received from him during all the years he was in occupation. Re-examined by Mr. Livingstone, witness -said that when she gave de—fondant the farm rent free he undertook to erect a house and other improvements on the place, William Piper, brother of plaintiff, said that he had taken over the farm after defendant had given up jmseession. Defendant’s cow bj-re was there at that time but later witness gave permission to remove it-. Defendant had not erected another cow byre. Mr. White said the case ' was a family squabble. With regard to the agreement defendant did not admit that he liad to erect a new cow shed but merely fit up a barn on the place as a four bail oow byre. Plaintiff had tried to make out that defendant had received a lot of help from her and given nothing in return. However, defendant had helped plaintiff and ’ her family in many ways, besides the buildings erected by defendant on the farm belonged to plaintiff. Defendant denied that plaintiff had ever given him eight heifers. Ho had paid for these cattle. At various times he had given plaintiff wheat and pota- | toes. When the agreement w,as signed he had asked the late Mr Cassity regarding the three cows for which he was new claiming. Mr Cassidy said that that question would have to be settled under a separate arrangement. To Mr Livingstone: When he entered into possession of the farm the rental was £1 per acre. Plaintiff wni now receiving £3 per acre. (.Proceeding.)

His Grace Archbishop .Tiilius, who is at present in Auckland, will remain in the North Island until about the, beginning of June.