MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Waipa Post, Volume 48, Issue 3467, 17 May 1934, Page 4

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

OTOROHANGA.—WEDNESDAY. (Before Mr F. H. Levien, S.M.) The following business was.trahSacted at the Otorohanga Magistrate’s Court on Wednesday:— W. G. Bonner, Inspector of Stock, proceeded against the following settlers for exposing sheep, infested with lice, in sa-leyar.ds: Jas. S. Awdry, fined £1 and costs 12s; same v, F. Chiles, a Maihiihi dairy farmer, who runs a few sheep to combat ragwort growth. Fined £1 and costs 12s; same v. Wallis Bi*os., Te Kawa. As only two sheep (which had missed the dipping operations) were found to be infested with lice, the defendants were fined 10s and costs 12s. FAILING TO CLEAR RAGWORT. Allan B. Carter, a farmer and carrying contractoi-, of Otorohanga, was charged with failing to clear ragwort off his holding in the Honikiwi district, and was fined 10s and costs 12s. iCOUNTY BY-LAW OFFENCES. Gordon Urquhart, traffic inspector to the Otorohanga County, prosecuted the following for offences against the county by-laws:— J. Reihana, for failure to px-ocure his driver’s license for a Foi’d half ton truck. Fined £1 and costs 15s. A. Leuschke was fined £1 and 10s costs on each of two charges foxspeeding. R. Emanuel was fined £2 and costs on a similar charge. J. IJ. Francis was fined £2 and 10s costs for speeding. T. Roxborough, for speeding, was fined 30s. WANDERING PIGS. J. Bargh was fined 10s for allowing pigs to wander on the county roads, in the Kio Kio distinct. DISOBEDIENCE OF ORDER. Sarah Kawenui proceeded against Hix-a Kingi (Maori policeman) on a chai-ge of being in arrears with maintenance money, for a- child, of which defendant was the reputed father. The arreax-s were £45 15s (at 10s per week). Kingi was sentenced to one month with hard labour, the sentence to be suspended provided £25 is paid by 31/5/34. SEPARATION AND MAINTENANCE. Mihi Kiri proceeded against James Kiri (her husband) for failing to provide her with adequate maintenance, and also that he had been guilty of pei-sistent cruelty to her, and of flirtations with other women. The defendant said his wife just walked away from home, some eight months ago, and did not return. He wanted her to come back home. The S.M. to complainant: “Why did you leave your husband?” Witness: “Oh, he flirts, he’s no good—he flirt all the time!” Defendant (a native of Otoi-ohanga district) admitted that a woman lived with him and his people, but thex-e was nothing wrong “with him.” The S.M.: “What is the name of the woman?” Defendant hesitated long and reflectively. The complainant: “Its Ruby; that’s her name!” Defendant: “Oh, no, I don’t live with Ruby—my father does. He is 75 yeai-s of age. The S.M.: “How old is Ruby?” Complainant: “Ruby is 20!” The S.M.: “I am afraid that I will have to make an order against you.” To the complainant: “ How much do you expect from him?” Complainant: “Oh, 7/6 a week.” S.M.: “Yes, that is a fair and reasonable amount.” To the defendant: “You ai"e ordered to pay your wife 7s 6d each week—and —get rid of Ruby!” AFTERMATH OF COLLISION. Thomas Toa proceeded against A. D. Hall, an Otorohanga cari-ier, to recover £l3 10s, being the amount of repair damage done to his truck when the defendant’s driver came into collision with plaintiff’s stationary truck on a narrow road in the Wai-mahox-a Valley. A mass of evidence was heard for both pax-ties. The case occupied several hours, and finally the nxagisti-ate summed up in favour of the plaintiff, giving judgment for the full amount claimed, and costs £5 2s.

TE AWAMUTU. —THURSDAY. • (Before Mr F. H. Levien, S.M.) The following undefended civil cases wese disposed of at the Te Awamutu sitting of the Magistrate’s Court this morning, and in each case judgment for plaintig was entered, with costs:' — C. Langmuir and Co., v. D. Heta, claim £9 Os 2d, costs £2 17s 6d. E. Kirk v. J. Parsons, claim £2 14s 9d, costs £1 9s 6d. . JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. W. J. and H. H. Thompson v. A. W. Clements, claim £ls 7s lid.—Order made for payment, and costs, in default 21 days’ imprisonment. Wallace Supplies Ltd. v. Herbert Murrell, claim £lO 12s 6d.—Debtor, in evidence, said he was farming a leasehold property on Puniu Road and was milking 49 cows. Mr Preston explained that debtor is merely a farm manager receiving an allowance to meet his living expenses. Murrell amplified the statement adding that the arrangement had been continued for two years. The present claim was foi’ an old debt, and he could not overtake the arrears, while low prices rule for butter-fat. —His Worship commented that a statement of finances had not been handed in, as required on the summons. The verbal figures given were not satisfying.— An adjournment until June Bth was granted.