BULLS NOTES.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXI, Issue 19171, 25 November 1924, Page 2

BULLS NOTES.

BULLS COURT. (From Our Own Correspondent.) A sitting of the Magistrate’s Court at Bulls was held on Saturday, 22nd inst., Mr R. M. Watson, S.M.. and Messrs L. M. Taverner and F. J. Mansell, J.’sP., presiding. Thomas Rogers, of Parewanui, was fined 2s on each of two charges of failing to send children to school. Defendant was also ordered to pay court expenses, 14s, and witness’ expenses, 15s. Judgment was given for the plaintiff in the following cases: Commissioner of Taxes v. .G. W. McKenzie, £24 12s 2d, costs £1 14s; H. W. Farrer v. J. Nelson, £1 2s 6d, costs Bs. 8. Sharp, of Bulls, was ordered to pay Williams and Harper, Ltd., £4 10s forthwith, in default five days in Wanganui Gaol. F. A. Holland (Mr Mackay) proceeded against J. T. Brady (Mr Lyon, of Woodville), and Louisson and Devine (Mr Innes) for the payment of £l7 0s 6d for repairs to the old Criterion Hotel at Bulls. Counsel stated that plaintiff was instructed by Brady to do the work, but on rendering his account Brady stated he was not liable and that his landlords, Louisson and Devine, would pay. Plaintiff could not obtain payment from either party, and these proceedings were taken. Evidence was given by plaintiff in support of counsel’s statement. To Mr Innes: I did not know Louisson and Devine in the matter until some four months after the work was done. To Mr‘Lyon: The work done was in connection with the kitchen boiler, which had worn out. Brady, in evidence, stated that Louisson and Devine had authorised him to get the work done, and that they were liable under the terms of his lease. To Mr Mackay: Holland did the job in a workmanlike manner and to his satisfaction. Alfred Hibberd (hotel chef), also gave evidence for defendant Brady. Mr Innes contended that there was no case against Louisson and Devine, and that defendant Brady was liable. XThe bench stated it was clear that the work was done at Brady’s request, and that as he did not disclose that he was acting as agent, he was liable. Judgment would therefore be for the plaintiff for the full amount cliamed, £l7 0s 6d, court costs £1 10s, solicitor’s fee £2 12s. J. Cooper (Mr Goldsman) of Bulls, engine-driver, claimed £42 15s 7d for wages and expenses from E. C. Gaisford (Mr Stanford), a threshing mill proprietor. Defendant contended that Cooper leased a threshing mill from him for a certain period, for which defendant was to receive running time, and that he w r as accordingly not liable for wages. Lengthy evidence was called, and the case did not finish till late in the afternoon. The bench considered Cooper was entitled to only £8 8s 6d, and gave judgment for this amount, with costs £1 14s and witnesses’ expenses £2 2s 3d. In a claim by T. F. Thomas (Mr Goldsman) for wages, amounting to £l7 7s lOd, defendant E. C. Gaisford (Mr Stanford) admitted £4 15s was owing. The bench gave judgment for plaintiff for £l2 ss, costs £2 4s, solicitor’s fee £2 12s.