MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Waipa Post, Volume VII, Issue 325, 23 June 1914, Page 5

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Before MR E. RAWSON, S.M,

FRIDAY, JUNE 19TH, 1914.

CIVIL CASES,

F. J. Bertram v. David Emery. Claim £ll 2s 4d. Judgment was given for plaintiff by default for £9 14s iod, with costs £1 10s 6d. Candy v. Rangitawhara. Claim £5 12s 9d. Counsel for defendant stated that his client was prepared to pay £l a month. JUDGMENT SUMMONS.

G. M. A. Ahier v. Pura. Claim £l4 16s lid. Defendant, who appeared, was ordered to pay 10s per week. DISCHARGING FIREARMS.

F. H. Bathurst was charged by the police (Constable Lander) with committing a breach of the railway by-laws on 27th April, 1914. Accused, in company with other territorials, was on his way to the encampment at Hautapu on the day in question. While in the trucks at Te Awamutu the offence took place, blank cartridges being used. The act, it was stated, was dore more out of bravado than anything else. A plea of guilty was entered. His Worship explained the seriousness of the offence, and inflicted a fine of £t and costs 7s. FINDING A POSTAL NOTE.

The same accused was also charged with stealing a postal note to the value of ios, the property of Alf. Dolan, of Te Awamutu. Counsel for accused admitted the facts with regard to finding the note, but not with regard to theft. He was not aware that he was doing wrong in converting the money to his own use. Evidence was giyen to the effect that three postal notes were procured from the local post office on the 25th ultimo for Alf. Dolan by his nephew. The former put the. notes in his pocket with the intention of sending them away that evening. He had occasion to go out about 10 o’clock, and. to the best of his belief the notes were still in his pocket. On his return he missed the notes. It was stated by the post office officials that the postal note produced was the one issued together with two others on the day in question. For the defence it was allegedthat accused, while on his way home from the billiard room picked up the note. He put it away, and on 27th May cashed it at Mr Maloney’s shop. It was his first experience of postal notes, and he did not give the matter any consideration as to who it belonged ; never thought of taking the note to the post office, or to the police. Accused was a hard working man, and his present employer was prepared to give -evidence as to his honesty. Counsel asked that he be dealt leniently with. Constable Lander also gave a favourable report regarding the accused.

His Worship said that people could not be too careful when finding money, or in fact, anything that did not belong to them. There were those who did not have too keen a sense of what belonged to them and what belonged to somebody else. He was quite satisfied that accused knew he was doing wrong when he cashed the note. His duty was to have informed the police. He was liable to a heavy penalty. However, he would deal leniently with him. A fine of £2 and £1 4s costs was imposed. A month was given in which to pay the amount. « INTEREST IN A LEASE.

A great deal of time was occupied in hearing a case arising out of a claim by K. J. McCardle against T. Bowen, for the sum of £33 is, being his interest in a native lease acquired by defendant.

The plaintiff'stated he had acquired the necessary signature to a part of the land. The defendant had also got the signatures of the other owners. To acquire the

interest in the whole block it was

necessary for defendant to have all the signatures, and witness agreed to let him have the signature of the natives if compensation, costs of native interpreter, and rent advanced was allowed. It was agreed that if defendant allowed him £3O he would arrange with the natives to sign, and would withdraw his lease. ‘A-day or two afterwards he got the lease from the post office, also got the signature of the native,

and returned the lease to the

solicitors. He expended £2 in ■' rent and £l to the native interpreter, receipts of which were produced. Defendant did not repudiate any liability. Letters had been sent to him, but he had received no answer. A letter • was received offering witness a certain sum. Witness had fulfilled his-part of the contract. In answer to counsel witness said it was not a fact that he was in the habit of securing one ■ signature in order to block soineone else, and did not give the

natives money in order to get them to sign. He apportioned the amount for foregoing his right, and so much for obtaining the signature. He did not consider it a sale but simply a consideration of what he had done. For a considerable time there was no denial of liability, and witness was constantly put off. R. Mainwaring, native .interpreter, gave evidence to witnessing the lease from McCardle to Bowen, and the fee was paid by McCardle. Had anything been irregular with the transaction witness would have had nothing to do with it. As the transaction took place some time ago he was unable to remember all that had occurred.

Counsel for defendant submitted that plaintiff should be non-suited on the grounds that plaintiff was claiming for selling his interest, and the claim was not in writing. It was an indivisible contract.

Counsel for plaintiff said the contract may be comprised in letters. It was for defendant to establish that there was an interest, and that McCardle had an interest to sell. On that day he had an interest to confirm. There was no interest unless the alienation was confirmed by the Board. His client had sworn that there was a definite arrangement which was not denied.

T. Bowen, defendant, said he negotiated for the lease in question through Messrs Thompson and Gage. The total area was 200 acres. Took no interest in the matter but left it to the agents to.get the signatures. Later he heard that plaintiff had secured one of the signatures. As the result of a conversation with plaintiff, the latter agreed to transfer his interest for a certain amount. The arrangement was that witness was to be charged £lO. Nothing was said about expenses. Did not agree to pay £3O, and did not authorise plaintiff or anyone to pay £2 on his account, or to pay Mainwaring. He was prepared to pay him £7 in order to settle the matter. Gage told witness that plaintiff was not entitled to amount claimed, which -he practically ignored. He understood that McCardle’s lease would be different to that of his own. Several accounts had been sent to him, which were not recognised by witness, being informed that McCardle had no interest.

An adjournment was made at this stage to see if the parties could come to a settlement, but without success.

On resuming witness said he paid Thompson £2O, and there were a few pounds incidental expenses. He sold out for £9 per acre, and had about twelve acres left.

Defendant was subject to a severe cross-examination.

On being recalled plaintiff said in discussing the matter with defendant the latter did not deny his liability, his reason for letting his account run on being that he had a lot to pay out. His Worship said the plaintiff’s story appeared the more probable one, and.judgment was given for the amount claimed, with.costs totalling £7.