MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Waipa Post, Volume XX, Issue 1244, 18 May 1922, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

OTOBOHANOA WEDNESDAY.

(Before Mr. F.. W. Platts, SM.).

The following cases were dealt with at the above sitting:— Noxious Weeds.

The' Inspector of Noxious Weeds brought four cases against owners of town sections for not clearing their properties of noxious weeds. Each of the defendants pleaded guilty, and were fined the minimum of 10s and costs, as the cases were the first 1 of their kind.

The defendants were H. C. M. Cornwall, F. W. Whyte, W. Ormsby, and David Ormsby. Maintenance Case.

R. Solomon (Mr McDiarmid) v. C. Solomon (Mr Patterson), application for separation order and maintenance order in respect of four children. Mr McDairmid asked for an adjournment owing to the unexplainable absence of his client. Mr Patterson pointed out the unfair ness of this second adjournment. He asked for costs and expenses of his witnessies.

His Worship allowed £1 Is counsel's fee, the witnesses expenses to be held over till the caste came on. Undefended Cases.

Judgment with costs was given in the following cases: A. Kerr v. W. Margon, claim £5; H. Isaac v. Tonga Hemara, £ls 14s 9d; W. Roberts v. J. Hughes, £4 13.; J. A. Parry v. D. G-. Monrad, £l9; Corbett and Mossman v. E. W. H. Anderson, £6 10b 6d; N. Kirkpatrick v. E. W. H. Anderson, claim £l3 lis. Claim for a Horse, T. Ormsby (Mr Vernon) v. Chaffey, claim £3O, value of a horse. The plaintiff gave evidence that he had given defendant the horse to "breakin," and that it had got its fetlock broken and had had to be shot. Defendant had offered to pay the amount but so far had not done so. His Worship gave judgment for the amount claimed and costs. Sale, of a Waggon. Castall Bros. (Mr W. J. C. Patterson) v. C. S. Christensen (Mr A. Patterson), claim for £66 3s 3d, the price of a four-wheeled waggon sold by the defendant to the plaintiffs. Evidence for the plaintiff was given by F. Young. He had gone out to Christensen's with Costall to see the waggon, which defendant had stated would carry 30 cwt or over. Christensen had said he had seasoned the wood himself and built the vehicle-. It was ■Qja his recommendation that Costall went to see the waggon. He'did not think the waggon was well finished, though the painting was good. It had not done much work. He did not look at the hubs critically, but did not see any defects apparent. The price first asked was £55, but later this was reduced to £52 10s. He had drawn Costall's attention to the rails being of soft wood. Defendant agreed to have the rails replaced with hard wood. The tyres showed no wear. It was July when he was there. In September he had gone to see it at Pomeroy's, and found it looking a wreck. The boxes of the wheels were all worn out. From what he saw there he would not pay the freight on the waggon.

Counsel for the defence pointed out that the purchase was made by plaintiff on his inspection and not on any representation by the defendant. The fact that the waggon was sold for £52 (the price for a new waggon at that time being from £75 to £BS), should prove beyond doubt that defendant did not sell the vehicle as a new one. Then, again, the waggon had been used on a very bad road, and it was not fair to hold defendant responsible for weaknesses or damages discovered five months after the sale, and after it had been first in use. Defendant said that Costall and Young examined the vehicle. He told Young that it would carry somewhere about 30 cwt. The two men went away and returned later, when Costall offered £SO, but he refused, and agreed to take £52 10s- on the spot. Costall came for the 1 waggon, and arranged with witness to have hardwood rails put on in place of the soft woodf Costall wrote out a cheque and told witness to send the waggon on. He altered the rails and painted them. He had told the plaintiff that he had worked the waggon for about six months, and had had over 30 cwt on it. ' The hubs were brand new. The fact that the end of one of the axles had broken off was no doubt owing to the fact that when the boxes had worn loose through shrinkage they had not been wedged in and the wheel of course worked outwards', and thus the main weight was on the end of the axle. He had not told Costall that the springs were new. Cross-examined: Witness stated that though he had used the waggon for six months it was only on an average of two days a week. The springs were second-hand, but they were quite sound. The waggon was in splendid condition when he sold it, and it must have been neglect on the part of Costall, in not oiling or greasing the •axle, that it came to grief. He had guaranteed nothing. James A. Daley, farmer, of Otewa, thought the vehicle a good one, worth £52, and quite capable of carrying from two to two and a-half tons. Andrew Kennedy gave similar evidence. His Worship said that it was a case in which it had to be decided whether defendant had described the waggon as new, and that it would carry 30 cwt.. It was likely that defendant would have said that the waggon was as good as new and he owned to having said it would carry up to 30 cwt. It had been established that the waggon was built partly of new and partly of old material. He thought the plaintiff was entitled to damages, which he assessed at £2O. entered for this amount, with witnesses' expenses £2 9s 6d, court costs £4, and solicitor's fee £4 13s. 6d. Sal© <rf a Section. Charles J. Johnson (Mr Patterson) V. L. G. Paap (Mr Mossman), claim £7 10s, balance of a charge for services rendered in connection with the -purchase of a section of land from one H. Isaac. Evidence was given by the plaintiff who stated that the transaction referred to occurred in July, 1919. Defendant had come to get his advice.

and showed him certain terms that he proposed to make to Isaac. Plaintiff told him it would be no use approaching Isaac thus, and he left it to witness to draw up a proposed agreement. This he did, and brought the parties together so that a modus operandi was possible. He had suggested that it was no good him wasting his time on a matter from which he was not making, any money. Paap said he would give him £lO for his trouble. Had written asking Paap for the £lO, and the latter*,after the transaction, had several times said: "I am not forgetting you." On the station when he was going away for a holiday he got an envelope handed to him by a porter, in which there was £2 10s, for which he had sent a receipt on his return. The receipt, he believed, was for £2 10s on account. His butt had "No account" on it. H. Isaac, farmer, deposed to having "called off" a deal he contemplated with Paap. He was approached by Johnson, who said he had come from Paap, and suggested certain conditions for a new agreement in respect to the deal. He had agreed to sell at £40 —provided Paap was agreeable. He had not paid Johnson anything for his services. If it had not been for Johnson the deal, would probably not have taken place. F. O. Phillips, solicitor, gave evidence as to the deal being brought about in Johnson's office, who had got the parties together. Mr Mossman sought a non-suit under the Land Agents Act of 1912. His Worship said that very reluctantly he must uphold the application for a non-suit. He regreted that he could not bring in the equity and good conscience clause. The court had the power to decide upon the matter of costs, and in this case he would certainly not allow costs to either side. The parties would have to pay their own. A nonsuit was entered, but no costs allowed. \ Mr Mossman stated that it had been a matter of principle lie had acted on in applying for a non-suit. However his client instructed him to say that he would give Mr Johnson some more money in connection with the matter. His Worship said he was pleased to hear this.