Resident Magistrate’s Court-

Waipawa Mail, Volume X, Issue 1023, 16 December 1886, Page 3

Resident Magistrate’s Court-

Waipawa, Wednesday, December 15. (Before [Captain Preece, R.M.J Henry Arrow pleaded guilty to having his chimney on fire. Fined 5s nnd costs. Charles Leacli, of Ormondville, was charged with selling three glasses of beer on Sunday sth December on premises not licensed, and pleaded not guilty. Mr Lee appeared for the defence. Sergeant O’Malley prosecuted. John Linehan, platelayer, residing at Ormondville, deposed that on Sunday afternoon, sth December, ho with two other residents went to defendant’s house. Witness called for three drinks and was about to pay for them when the other paid. Witness called for three glasses more and paid a 2s piece, receiving 6d change. lie had three glasses of beer, one of them out of a cup ; and had the cup filled twice. They shouted four times between them. The beer was taken from a cask which was standing in the old bar. The cask was a ten gallon one tothe best of his belief. lie was quite sure that he shouted once and gave Leach 2s, and he gave him 6d in change.

By Mr Lee:—On the Thursday after the Sunday I had a few words with Mr Leach; but not a disagreement. He shot my pigs and told mo he had done so as they were trespassing. I went to the police and told them the same night ho shot the pigs. I was not sent by any ono to get this drink or lay an information ; not even by Mr Daly. I was chatting with Mr Daly ; I told everybody I would lay an information against Leach. I did so because he shot the pigp. Mr Lee said he would withdraw the plea, as the information wur laid in spite. lie asked the Court to treat the case as a first offence. There had been a previous case with Leach, but it had to do with the Brewer’s Act.

Ilia Worship said he would not take the previous case into account at all, as it was a test case.

Two witnesses, from Ormondville were in readiness, but their evidence was not taken. They wore asked if they wished to have their expenses. They replied in the affirmative. His Worship gave judgement ns follows :—I shall treat this as a first offence, but still I shall inflict a substantia] penalty ; the law must be carried out, though I shall make some allowance for the information being laid in spite. I shall inflict a penalty of £ls, with costs 13s, witnesses’ expenses £2 7s Gd, total £lB 6s, in default one month’s imprisonment in Napier gaol. The fine w*B paid. Spencer Sutton v. Louis Cannon, claim £9 14s. Judgment for plaintiff, for whom Mr Lee appeared, with costs 60s, witness expenses 2s 2d, interpreter’s fee 2s 6d, solicitor’s fee £1 Is. Dr Mirbaeh v. H. Hopkins, of Norsewood, claim 108 Gd, balance of amount. Mr Lee appeared for the plaintiff, for whom judgment was given, with cost. J. Merrylees, v. Hori Nia Nia, claim, £36 14s, Mr Lee for plaintiff, for whom judgment was given, with costs, interpreter’s fee and solicitor’s fee £1 11s Gd. Angus McLennan v. Rodderick McKenzie, claim £l6 2s 3d, promisory note dishonored. . Mr Lee for plaintiff, for whom judgment was given, with costs, 29s ; solicitor's fee, £1 Is ; witness’s expenses, 12s.

George Cameron v. George Mullinder, claim £2 7s Gd. Mr Lee for plaintiff ; the defendant was not represented. George Cameron deposed that he built a house ror the defendant, who had an account for the sum now claimed. Witness had given Mr McLennan an order on Mr Mullinder for £2 6s 6d, goods supplied to him (witness), and gave defendant credit for the amount. The order had not been paid to Mr McLennan, by Mr Mullinder, and Mr McLennan had been claiming the money from plaintiff. Angus McLennan remembered an order being given him by Mr Cameron on Mr Mullinder. Ho applied to Mr Mullinder for payment of the order, but was refused, saying there was nothing due to Cameron. Witness therefore looked to Mr Cameron to pay the order. Defendant said ho didn’t owe Mr Cameron sixpence ; in fact, he had paid him 6s too much ; he had never accounted for the order being presented. To Mr Lee : I left the account upon which basis the settlement was made in the plaintiff’s house. Mr Leo put in a letter from defendant’s wife, Mrs Mullinder, to Mr Limbrick, to show how the plaintiff had been treated. The letter was handed to Cameron, by Mrs Mullinder, purporting to be an order for him, from the defendant, but it was really a subterfuge, asking Mr Litubrick to tell plaintiff that no order had been left with him, and asking him not to tell Cameron what the letter said. The magistrate said ho would give judgment for the plaintiff provided the order was put into Court. The Court then adjourned till 2 o’clock At 2 o’clock llis Worship gave judgment in the case Cameron v Mulinder, £2 lbs Gd, with costs and solicitor’s fee. SOWRY V. lIOWLLETT. Judgment was also given in the case Toseph Sowry v. W. F. Ilowlett, (which had been heard at Woodville) ns follows : —ln this case, the plaintiff, who is an architect and builder claimed £2l, as fees for plans and specifications prepared and supervising in connection with a building put up for defendunt at Pahiatua. It was proved during the hearing of the case that the contract was taken by ono Crosßo, the material being supplied to him. Plaintiff had supervised the work, and gave a certificate that it wns done to his satisfaction, that the house was not painted or stopped, and was built of green timber, that within a month after the completion of the house the rain drove ir.to it and that the defendant was obliged to employ a man to put the building in a water-proof state. The defendant urged that the plaintiff had given his certificate for work which wns improperly done and that ho suffered loss thereby. The Court is of opinion that the leakage was caused principally by want of paint and stopping and from the use of green timber. Tho plaintiff was not guilty of negligence which would debar him from recovering for tho work done, nor was he in any way guilty of collusion with tho builder in giving his certificate, but tho Court thinks that he should have warned the defendant against the use of green timber and want of stopping, and should have given him the full benefit of his skill and knowledge in the practice of his profession, on these grounds the plaintiff’s claim will be reduced, and judgment given for the plaintiff for £l6 16s, with costs, £l 148; witness’expenses, £2 10a ; solicitor’s fee, £1 Is.